Sen Wirch on WI Budget

Wisconsin State Senator Robert Wirch speaks during debate on the 2012-2013 Wisconsin State Budget. He argues that the cuts to education are counterproductive to economic development and job creation in Wisconsin.

Thank you Mr. President.

About 2 years ago, under the Doyle administration we had a great corporation come into Pleasant Prairie: Uline. Uline came in from Illinois with about 1200 good jobs, $40-60,000 jobs. They spent $200 million in our area on construction, on a corporate headquarters, a million-square-foot warehouse—and by the way, they're planning another one right now. They gave $8 million for an olympic-sized pool for the community. Just a wonderful success story. So I had a chance to get a tour of this beautiful facility. And of course, when I had a chance I asked a corporate spokesman, I said "Did you have any concerns about coming into Wisconsin. Hearing the rhetoric around the state capitol, did you have any concerns about coming into Wisconsin?" The guy though for a minute and he said "Yes, we were worried if we could get enough qualified workers so we could operate in this area, but we were assured by other businesses we could get enough qualified workers." That, I would suggest, is the key to economic development: getting good qualified workers. Yet this administration says the state is "open for business" and shuts the door on education. How does that help economic development? Taking a billion dollars out of K-12, cutting our tech schools when we have a 9% unemployment rate and people need to be retrained, and cutting 30% out of our tech schools. No, I learned the lesson from Uline. The corporations told us: "we need good, quality workers." We are in worldwide competition out there. The worst thing you can do for economic development is slam the door on education, and that's this what this budget does.

Sen Jauch on Wisconsin Budget

Wisconsin State Senator Robert Jauch discusses the 2012-2013 Wisconsin State Budget passed on Thursday, June 16, 2011.

Mr. President and members,

The senator from the 20th is the perfect spokesperson for the extreme policies of the Republican majority that is, could be defined as "madness on steroids."¹ For 163 years, Mr. President and members, Wisconsin has been a beacon, it has been a model of good government. It has set the standard for the rest of the nation on how we educate our children, how we care for our neighbors, how we show respect for our elderly. The moral compass always pointed to Wisconsin. As a result of this budget, the senator from the 20th, their moral compass points to Mississippi. The fact of the matter is I'm glad the senator from the 20th spoke because his words speak the truth of this budget: the Republican majority has a disdain for the working class. The Republican majority has no respect for the people of Wisconsin who don't make much. Their whole commitment is to starve the programs that serve the public and reward the economic elite of the state, and this budget demonstrates that in spades. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that the test is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have so little. The Republicans fail that test and the senator from the 20th is proud of that fact. This is a budget that does increase the financial burden on the people of this state who have the least. The citizens that the senator from the 20th was speaking about who qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit love Wisconsin, they're Wisconsin workers, they care about their families and they will have $500—if you're a family of three children—you will have $500 less in your pocket to meet the needs of your families. That is neither fair, Mr. President, nor is it moral. It is indefensible. It is a tax increase. It is $534 less to be able to meet the needs of their families, and the fact is that the Republicans don't care. They can't look at the citizens of Wisconsin with a straight face because they are abandoning everything that is good about this great state. For 163 years, Mr. President, we have led the nation in education. This is a budget that doesn't move us forward, it goes backward. This budget does not enhance the quality of life for our citizens, it weakens it. For 163 years, Wisconsinites have practiced shared responsibility, in helping their neighbors, in helping each other try to lead better lives. In ensuring there is a strong state-local partnership to help communities—poor communities meet the essential needs of their citizenry. The Governor and the Republicans mouth the words but they don't understand the meaning. They spear those poor communities, poor schools, poor families, while they provide advantages for the economic elite.

There's a woman who testified, Mr. President, in Janesville. She said: "I've never done this before. I'm the mother of two children. We're very proud of the education our two boys received in the Janesville school district. I've never spoken at a public hearing; I don't consider myself political." In other words, she was the face of Wisconsin. She would, if listening today to the words of the senator from the 20th: she said "When I heard the words, when I read the proposals from Governor Walker"—and certainly she would add, and heard the words of the senator from the 20th—"In one word, I was heartbroken." I didn't know how much I loved Wisconsin until these proposals were introduced. Mr. President and members, I attended 19—4 finance hearings, should have been more. I attended 15 listening sessions, public hearings on the budget, throughout the state of Wisconsin. At least 900 testified at public hearings in finance, I presume there were 1500 or 1600 other people who spoke strongly about their disdain for this budget. Their frustration that the Republican majority is so out of touch with the real needs, and that they do not understand the adverse consequences, the pain that they're going to impose upon the people of Wisconsin.

I could not believe that the senator from the 8th had the gall to suggest that this budget does not cut public education. Not only does the governor's budget not provide the tools—unless it is a meat axe, to public education—not only doesn't he provide the tools, but then this budget gleefully directs local school districts to cut another $800 million even though these school districts have been cutting their budgets for the last 15 years. It's a budget that cuts $250 million from the University of Wisconsin, $500 million from Medicaid and BadgerCare, at the same time that it provides almost $200 million more in corporate tax breaks. Mr. President and members, the state is not broke, this government is broken. It is morally bankrupt, and it is shown in the policies in page after page after page. Because the only people being asked to share in the sacrifice, Mr. President and members, are those that have the least ability to afford it.

And so Mr. President and members, I'm not sure what happened to Wisconsin. I'm often asked that question as I travel around the state: "What in the world happened to the state we loved?" A state that recognized that low-income working families pay taxes, they coach little league teams, they support church fundraisers, they dig into their pockets, they donate food to food shelves, they're there when a neighbor needs their help, they serve on the volunteer fire department, and then they hear the senator from the 20th—defining the Republican voice of extremism—suggest that somehow they're getting too much. Mr. President, the second to the last amendment passed by this committee was a $146 million tax cut to corporations; 64% of the corporations in this state currently do not pay any income taxes to the state of Wisconsin. The burden is being felt by the working-class families, and they're going to have a greater burden to pay as a result.

Mr. President and members, Governor Walker campaigned on making government smaller. This is big government at its worst. There are more unfunded mandates and dictates to local units of government to tell them how they should spend their money, restrictions on decisions they can make. Mr. President, it isn't... it is bad government. It is bigger government. Because they are making the decisions from Madison about communities that they've never visited, they've never been in. Mr. President and members, this is a budget that makes Grover Norquist feel proud. Grover Norquist is the pied piper of extremism, extremist philosophy. Grover Norquist said that he wanted to squeeze government spending so much that you could drown it down a bathtub. That's exactly what this budget does, is it squeezes spending. Its intention is to squeeze spending so that there aren't the resources to support public education, to support higher education, to support vocational colleges, to support programs for our elderly and our disabled. And Mr. President and members, the Republicans are gleeful about the fact that they are starving government of the ability to meet the needs of their families. Because the Republicans' friends are doing well, and they are rewarded for doing so well in this budget. Mr. President, $500 million is going to be cut from Medicaid. There's a woman in Superior who has Stage 4 cancer, who takes care of her disabled husband, who asked the question: "whose going to take care of my disabled husband when I die because I can no longer get BadgerCare. Because if I don't get BadgerCare I will die." Where's the answer in this budget, Mr. President? It is that these Republicans are turning their back on her and the tens of thousands of other citizens in Wisconsin who have needs. Mr. President, the pain to our local communities and damage from these cuts are going to last a very long time. Schools are going to be closed. Wisconsin is "open for business" but our schools are closing. To the parent whose child is now in a class of 31 what do you tell her? We can't afford to provide support for any more of your public school, but if you'd like to move to Milwaukee or Racine, we'll make sure that there's a chance for you to be able to go to private school and we'll take care of that support. Mr. President and members, this budget abandons our moral and constitutional obligation to equal education. The tradition of stewardship to our natural resources wouldn't be recognized as a result of the items in this budget. It hands the keys to our resources over to developers and contractors, but proposes cuts to local transit systems.

Mr. President and members, people are frightened in Wisconsin by the economic situation that is adding so much stress to their lives. They're extremely frightened that their own government is abandoning them. This budget is an attack on these very same families. It is an assault on the middle class. It is an abandonment of our responsibilities as officials to make sure that every citizen has the same opportunity, for equal opportunity. These citizens understand sacrifice, they know what it means to give. They help their neighbors, they strengthen their community. They're victims of the recession and now they're a victim of their own government. The Wisconsin way is the manner in which citizens collectively work to improve the common wealth. Mr. President and members, this is a budget that forsakes the traditions and forgets the people of the state of Wisconsin who will be so adversely impacted by the decisions in this budget. It's a shameful moment in Wisconsin history.

Video posted to youtube by @nicknicemadison

---

¹Senator Jauch here refers to the preceding speaker, Senator Glenn Grothman, who spoke in favor of the elimination of the Earned Income Tax Credit calling it a government handout akin to welfare. That speech can be seen on youtube.

Sen Jauch on Educational Equality

Wisconsin State Senator Robert Jauch speaks for a motion before the Joint Committee on Finance during its May 27, 2011 meeting. The motion seeks to address the increased inequality within Wisconsin's education funding which would result from Governor Walker's proposed budget.

Thank you.

This motion gives us an opportunity to talk about our moral and constitutional obligation to provide equal education for every child in the state of Wisconsin. And I think that one thing that should not be argued at all is that both the reduction in aids—the $850 million reduction in aids, the $890 million reduction in levy limits—is going to result in an educational system that provides less opportunity and is less equal than the one before it, and that it is moving away from that constitutional responsibility we have to every child. It says:

In order to provide reasonable equality of educational opportunity for all children the state must guarantee that basic educational opportunity be available to each pupil, with the state contributing to a district's educational program if... [it] meets state standards.

The standards will remain in place the dollars will not. And we will have those school districts unfortunately that are the least-spending school districts that are the most adversely impacted. One would think, under the rhetoric and the way the governor is treating public education in this budget, is that public education is public enemy number 1 instead of public envy number 1. Our public schools are the reason that Wisconsin is recognized as a state that is committed to its future. Education is the way in which we commit to the promise of our future: our children. And as a result of this budget, it is going to be less equal, less opportunity, and the poor are going to fall further behind.

Much is said again about, by Governor Walker, that he was going to provide the tools to school districts that would make up the difference for the cuts that he was making in general aids. He wasn't telling the truth. He was using bad math. He was deceiving people. He was hiding the fact that there is going to be a gap that school districts are going to have that they can't make up, forcing them to make additional cuts. The ones that are making the cuts are those that have been making the cuts all along.

But there's a huge inequity that I want to point out. Just from the Governor's proposal that's not being addressed in the Republican motion. One would think that there was shared sacrifice by all communities in this budget. You look at the Governor's budget: I have an example of three communities, three school districts that will see increases in their state aids, not decreases. I don't have any districts in northern Wisconsin that see increases, they all take deep cuts. So here are three that have increases: Mequon-Thiensville, Nicolet, and Pewaukee. Good school districts no doubt. Mequon: 3.2% increase, Ashland: 6.4% decrease. The equalized property value per pupil in Mequon is $1,300,000, it's $1,316,092. The equalized value in Ashland, Wisconsin is $299,582. In other words, there will be more money in this formula going to a community that has property value worth five, four times what is available for the citizens in Ashland. I want to hear the argument as to why that meets our state constitution's expectation, requirement that there be equal education opportunity between every child. Nicolet: 2.9% increase. Nicolet's equalized value is $3,729,000. Rice Lake: Rice Lake's decrease is 10.2%. Their equalized value is 596,000. Nicolet has almost six times the property value. They're getting an increase in their state aid, Rice Lake is seeing a decrease. Pewaukee: 7.4% increase. They have $1,114,000. Superior, which you visited is seeing a 10.2% cut, $404,000 equalized value.

In other words, these statistics reveal how there is prosperity for the wealthiest and sacrifice for the poorest, and that we become less equal as a state. Matter of fact, I'm beginning to wonder the state we live in today. Wisconsin has always been a progressive state. Not a red-blue state but a state that has supported the values of the citizens of Wisconsin, and that means that they favor equal opportunity. They don't want to build walls around rich communities and disparity for opportunity for those communities and then disparity for poor communities. We have an equalization formula that is established to try to balance state funding for those poor schools, so they don't fall further behind. So the fact of the matter is that this formula widens the gap between the rich and the poor. It makes it more difficult for those who have been struggling all along to be able to have a chance to provide their children an equal opportunity with those that live within the wealthiest communities that have been spending more money.

Now, as part of a history lesson, go back to 1995 when revenue was... I think it was '95 when revenue controls were put into place. When revenue controls were put into place, you did have a gap between the rich and the poor. Matter of fact, I think it was Nicolet that was spending about 10,000 per student and Rice Lake was spending around 5,000 or 4,000-5,000. They were spending substantially less. When the revenue controls were implemented Nicolet was a allowed the choice between a cost-of-living or $140. Nicolet was able to increase their child by $310, Rice Lake could only increase their spending per kid by 140. In other words, revenue control said a child in Nicolet was worth more than a child in Rice Lake. That gap was created, that disparity was established in 1995 or four when revenue controls went into place, and that gap is now widening even further. That means that a community that has wealth has a chance to invest. Sort of the policy of the state where the child in the poor district is treated like Raggedy Ann and the child in a poor [sic] district is a fashion model. It's not fair, and this budget is going to make it worse. The paper points out that when there is less money put into public K-12 education, two things happen. This budget reduces state aid down to about 61%—is that the—Fiscal bureau?—we were once at 66%? We were once at 66% and this budget's what, now going down to about, reducing down to 61? And last year was about 62? So anyway, it's going the wrong direction. It's going in the direction where the state is committing less dollars to public education, local property taxpayers are picking up more, which burdens the poorer communities because they are less able. What this budget is doing is forcing poor people to have to dig deeper into their pockets to raise their own property taxes.

We could go—I talked about South Shore, I think it was a week ago. I mentioned to you that South Shore was facing a referendum because they were looking at dissolution as a result of this budget. They voted 7-1 to increase their property taxes. They were forced into voting to raise their property taxes because they value education and they know the state of Wisconsin, this legislature and governor, does not. So they were forced to go through a fight to save their schools because this legislature doesn't have the commitment to save the schools. There are going to more school districts around this state that are facing dissolution, where they're carved up by someone in Madison because they can't get to consolidation. And a lot of those are going to happen up in rural Wisconsin, where you'll lose your identity, you'll lose your sense of who you are. You lose your community. When a community loses its school it loses its centerpiece. And this budget treats schools as though they are the cause of our problems in this state. At the same time it celebrates private education as though Wisconsin will triumph if a few parents have a few more choices for themselves while we deny the rest of the parents the chance to have equal opportunity for education. So what this... The point that I'm trying to make is to remind us of the history lesson that the less money the state puts into K-12 education the more likely you are going to face a constitutional challenge when you have a real Supreme Court. A constitutional challenge: when the Supreme Court made its decision in Vincent vs Voight the Supreme Court said:

the present school finance system more effectively equalizes the tax base among districts... [than the previous school finance decision of the court] Kukor [vs Grover].

The court noted this was due to the significant increase in state function in the time between the two decisions. In other words, they hung their hat on that decision. On the basis that the state of Wisconsin was putting more money into education. Try to have that decision today where the state of Wisconsin is cutting money to education, and the gap between rich and poor is widening even more. So the fact of the matter is that this budget is abandoning our commitment to public education. It is going to be harder for kids to have the chance to get an equal education. It is wrong for us to treat the parents and the taxpayers of the state who live in those districts who've been spending less to accept that.

Rep Shilling on JFC Education Motion 359

Wisconsin State Representative Jennifer Shilling discusses motion 359¹ before the May 27, 2011 meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance. The motion adjusted funding to ameliorate the cuts to K-12 public education under Governor Walker's proposed budget.

Thank you.

You know, if you had to tell a business that they needed to cut $800 million from the assembly line of the product that they make, that product would probably suffer. And now we're looking at our schools and we're saying "you need to cut $800 million." That educational experience will undoubtedly suffer. And I think the proposal that we have before us, it does demonstrate that we are committed to public education. That when we do have revenue available that we want to put it into the general school aid funding formula to help our schools out.

And talking with schools in my area, the superintendent has said "well, that first year is going to be difficult, but we will make it. We'll be able to do it. It'll be difficult, not without challenges, but it's the second year that we haven't really heard a lot of discussion about. And that's the one that will really, really be difficult for us. We can get through one year, but then the second year will be even more difficult." So I think talking about that foundation of education here in the state and I recognize it is the number one area that we put in our state dollars in our budget. But as we talk about our values here in the state of Wisconsin, the pathway to being competitive in the workforce and being prepared and having those skills necessary as they come out of high school and go on to higher education or go into the workforce that does that valuable educational experience. And we in Wisconsin are nationally recognized for the innovative things going on in our schools, the high test scores that we have from our students, and really that dedication that we have from those professionals in our classrooms.

And I think as we talked about where we could spend that some of that new revenue² and I heard leaders on your side of the aisle talk about recycling, I heard them talking about roads aids, but your side was silent until today about education. And from day one we were talking about trying to mitigate the cuts to public education. We were talking about investing in our technical schools. And today when you came out from your meetings from yesterday and trying to find some sort of area... we know what you're going to do in schools and we don't think it's enough. We don't think that it is enough with the opportunities that we have here to really say that our schools have been under the revenue caps and controls since 1992-93. I mean, the governor wanted to go back to those '93 spending levels. And they have continued to tighten their belt, it's cutting into the fat, it's talking about personnel in our schools and our programming that are available in the curriculum. And I think that today what we have before us will demonstrate our commitment to public education in this system, in our state. So I know we're going to hear rhetoric on the other side about this, but really as we look at that pathway to success: the foundation that is necessary to be competetive in a global economy, it is about education. It is all about education, and we need to continue to invest in Wisconsin's best resource, which is its people, which is the children, which is our future workforce.

The motion failed by a 12-4 party-line vote. Representative Shilling is running for the state senate in the 32nd district in a recall election set for July 12.

---

¹ Legislative Fiscal Bureau summary:

Motion 359 would make a number of funding adjustments in the general aid area. It would provide around $333 million in general aid, school aids in '12-'13, eliminate the high-poverty aid appropriate and fold that into the general school aid, put in low-income pupil weighting, a minimum aid payment of $3000 per member. Within the aid formula secondary costing would be at 100% rather than 90%. Special adjustment aid, similar to the bill, would be at 90% rather than 85% under current law. It'd create a hold-harmless aid appropriation so that as a result of all these aid changes no district would lose money compared to the prior year, the current law concept. Essentially a number of these provisions would be similar or identical to the State Superintendent's aid proposal. There's some elements that would not be part of this that are in this proposal, but this would accommodate or incorporate a number of the provisions in the State Superintendent's proposal.

² Rep. Shilling here refers to allocations of money from significantly increased revenue projections recently released for the Wisconsin State Budget.

Rep Grigsby on JFC Unemployment Motion

Wisconsin State Representative Tamara Grigsby speaks during a May 26, 2011 meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance. She is responding to a motion unexpectedly added to the agenda which will cut the first week of unemployment benefits and bar recipients from collecting benefits for a year after any positive drug test.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also say that this is a very, very callous motion. You know, I don't understand why we are so... I mean, we just keep beating people when they're down. I mean, we just keep beating them and stomping them until they're no more. Where is the compassion for humanity in this room? I mean, we just won't stop. We seek out everyone we can find and then we beat them down until they can't be beaten anymore. And we're doing this now like every day. I mean, every day we find somebody to do this to.

I mean, these are real people. I mean, I was just sitting here as people were talking thinking, listing names of people who I know who are unemployed and who receive unemployment. And there aren't people who--you know--just didn't feel like pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Or people who wanted to sit around all day and watch TV and collect a check. These are people who were former engineers. One of my friends is a former engineer and is having a very difficult time finding work. I have another friend who was a program manager at a very large youth agency and had a hard time finding work. I have a neighbor with a PhD who was laid off because of the recession and having a hard time finding work. These aren't people who are sitting around, are in the normal group of people that you like to say you kick all the time. These are working people, who caught a hard time, caught a bad break.

And while it might not be your world that this little meager amount of money from unemployment helps much, but this is all they depend on. And one week's worth of lost income, of not receiving an income, is devastating. Is devastating. I mean, your administration has already ended unemployment insurance extensions earlier this spring. And then at that time the [Department of Workforce Development] Secretary Perez said that he was ending the extensions because there were 20,000 jobs out there and unemployment insurance just simply kept people from going out to go get those jobs. If that isn't the most disgusting, cold thing that I've ever heard... People want to work, people want to go and be productive. People want to have family-sustaining jobs. These people are not staying home because they have nothing else to do.

One week is an eternity when you don't have food to put on the table, or clothes to put on your kid's back, or be able to pay for even your child to get a winter coat when that first snow comes. A week is an eternity when you have to pay for childcare, when you have to... a week is an eternity. And just to say: "Oh you got to wait, just because we said so" is callous and it's cold. It's consistent, though, with what we've been doing this entire sesssion to people. People who need...

I mean, does anybody get the concept of a safety net? A safety net, that's what we as a society are supposed to offer our citizens. We're supposed to offer a place where the most downtrodden can land. Can land until they can get themselves back to where they need to be. Any humane society provides some type of safety net for the most vulnerable, for the most downtrodden. And we are just every day taking away, snipping away at that safety net. There hardly is anything called a safety net here anymore. If you look at our W2 program, you look at how difficult it is to be eligible for benefits under that program. And you look at the fact that we cut that by eighty percent upon its inception, and the numbers now nowhere near compare to the need. If you look at our food stamp utilization, you look at the numbers: nowhere near the need. So the safety net in this state is becoming nonexistent.

And then, just to mention, as far as the drug test part goes. You know, it's all about punish, punish, punish all the time. And we have no compassion for people. Now, I certainly could understand an employer being concerned about someone having tested positive for an illegal substance. However, to punish that individual for an entire year because they needed... what they really need was some kind of help, some kind of treatment. But to say they will no longer be eligible for an entire year? I mean, I bet there's some people in this room who can think back to their college days, and certainly wouldn't have wanted this law to be in place at that time if they were receiving unemployment. An entire year? Really? I mean, how about requiring them to go get some help, or get treatment, or get something? Or just maybe, you know... I don't know what the answer is, but an entire year, that's outrageous.

Like I said, you've already ended the unemployment insurance extensions. You've already whittled away at W2 benefits, at all types of different programs that help the most vulnerable. Yesterday we went back to family care and slashed that. I guess it's... I guess your response is going to be, somebody's going to respond and say: "well all this does is make sure we aren't letting drug abusers... we aren't using taxpayer dollars to support people who are taking drugs." I guess I would tell you to expect a motion maybe for CEOs applying for grants or benefits for economic development, maybe they should take a drug test too. Maybe those who folks who we're giving tax credits out to. That's, you know, state money. They're just as likely be taking illegal drugs too. So maybe we should just drug test everybody. But no, we just go and find the most downtrodden. We just go find those who are in the most need, and we just kick them more and more and more. Just kicking them when they're down, every day, that's all we do in that building.

And then, do you really go home and feel good about that? I go home every day and feel sick to my stomach after leaving this room, when you look what we do to people. I literally feel sick. And so it's hard for me to understand how you go home and feel well, feel good about doing this to people at a time, at a time when people need help the most. It's just wrong, and I'm just dissapointed that this is even before us.

Video thanks to @nicknicemadison

Rep Kelly on MN Marriage Amendment

Minnesota Representative Tim Kelly discusses a proposed amendment to the Minnesota State Constitution that would ban gay marriage.  Constitutional amendments in Minnesota must be approved by the legislature before appearing on a statewide ballot.  Before the House is a motion to return the amendment to committee.

Thank you Mr. Speaker and members.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise to oppose this re-referral. That might seem a little contradictory because I think you all know I voted no in rules in the other day. But Mr. Speaker, I also made a promise to you that I wasn't going to play any games with this issue. Because it's a very serious issue. And I'd just like to tell the body that a few weeks ago I told our leadership, I told the speaker that I was going to be voting no on this amendment. And being on the executive board, and on leadership, I suggested that maybe I should be removed from that. And the speaker said "Why? Why would we do that?" And Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I understand that you had an obligation to fulfill of bringing this issue to the House floor, and it's here.

You know, I've never been a real in-your-face patriotic person. But in thinking of this issue I can't help but feel that this is an assault on personal freedom and choice. And it brought me back to a movie I saw back in the 90's by the name of, the movie was "American President." In that movie Michael Douglas played the president and he gave this speech, and I thought it was pretty riveting at the time. And he said: "You know, America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. And you've got to want it bad, because it's going to put up a fight. It's going to say 'You want free speech? If you want free speech, let me see you acknowledge a man that makes your blood boil standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. Show me that, and celebrate that, make that be a symbol of your country.'" Members, I think those were great words. Because we do enjoy a lot of freedoms here. We enjoy the freedom of religion. We enjoy the freedom of speech. And yes, we enjoy the freedom of choice, which arguably is one of the most important freedoms we have.

When we get up in the morning, we get to choose where to go to work. Where to send our kids to school. All the choices we have, we probably don't even think about, we take them for granted. And yet we stand here on the house floor deciding whether to put an amendment on the constitution of the state of Minnesota to remove some personal choices and freedoms from just a select few. Not for all, just a select few. In my mind, we're starting to talk about discrimination and prejudice. And I know we hide behind the fact that says we're just bringing this to the people. We're just going to give a voice to the people. Well, I think we can look back in history and see that we're littered with choices by the people that were very hurtful. All we have to do is look back to the 50's and 60's and see where prejudice and discrimination were at its height.

You know, a couple years ago Barack Obama was elected, our first black person as the president of the United States. There was a saying going around there that I picked up, it said, you know: "Rosa sat, so Martin could stand, so Barack could run, so that we could fly." And I don't think that was any big affirmation of any one individual as President of the United States. It was a statement of how far we had come as a country. We had taken a giant leap forward. We could celebrate for a moment that we were past prejudice and discrimination. We had overcome, and a majority of the people had elected the first black person. And now, rightfully so, he will be judged on his victories and his defeats, not for the color of his skin. And I believe right now, if we put this amendment on the constitution, we're taking a giant step backwards.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, could I ask Representative Kriesel to yield?

You can, Representative Kelly, Representative Kriesel will yield.

Rep Kelly: Representative Kriesel, I understand that this is a very personal issue for you, but could you please tell me how you lost your legs?

The member from Washington, Representative Kriesel.

Rep Kriesel: Thank you Mr. Speaker, Representative Kelly. I lost my legs serving in Iraq. I was on a combat patrol, we encountered an improvised explosive device, and that's how I was wounded.

Member from Goodhue, Representative Kelly.

Rep Kelly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, would Representative Kriesel yield for one more question?

He will, Representative Kelly.

Rep Kelly: Representative Kriesel, could you please tell the body what you were doing in Iraq?

The member from Washington, Representative Kriesel.

Rep Kriesel: Thank you Mr. Speaker, Representative Kelly. I chose to go to Iraq so I could defend our way of life, our freedom and promote freedom to an oppressed group of people on the other side of the world that deserve it.

Member from Goodhue, Representative Kelly.

Rep Kelly: Thank you, Representative Kriesel, thank you for your service and for your sacrifice. We appreciate it.

Members, America isn't easy. And being a leader in America, or in the state of Minnesota, sitting in your chairs, is not easy. Sometimes you're faced with very difficult decisions. And you have to stand up, and take a stand.

You know, I talked to a lot of you and you're thinking about "Well, I made this promise back to my people back in my district or to my BPOU. Because they asked me about marriage, and I told them 'I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.'" And we all respect that. But I'm just wondering: did they ask you another question after that? Did they say "if that's your belief, will you promise to make sure that everyone else in the state of Minnesota abides by your belief?" Is that what you promised? Or did you just make your opinion known that you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman? You didn't make promises to impose your will on other people.

So now let's just put this in perspective a little bit because yesterday was an amazing day. We had an individual standing at that podium, with more hatred than I have ever heard.¹ And because of that, when we went to recess, I think the majority of you were outraged. And if we would have voted yesterday, this amendment was going down on an up-and-down vote. I would ask you to think about what happened yesterday. And think about why your emotions were that high, that you were instantly going to vote this down. Because you know what? You know what happened to that individual? A few hours later, he was standing here in the capitol having a press conference denouncing our speaker. Because that's his right. And he's got that right because he lives in this country. Because of people like John Kriesel. And yet this amendment suggests that we can take away the rights of a small group of people to live their life the way they would like to live it. If we vote this amendment on, we legitimize that individual, and we diminish the sacrifices that Representative Kriesel and all the men and women who died fighting for the freedoms of individuals.

Representative Murphy, at this time I would like to ask you to consider withdrawing your amendment to refer this back to committee. I believe that the people on this side of the aisle will join with you and your members to vote this amendment down. Because it is the right time, it is the right statement, for the state of Minnesota.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representatives Kelly and Kriesel joined two other Minnesota Republicans in voting against the amendment in the House.  The measure nonetheless passed.  (Full results)

¹ Rep Kelly here refers to an opening prayer given by Pastor Bradlee Dean in which the pastor suggested that President Barack Obama is not a Christian.  His statements were condemned by the Speaker and both parties in the House and his prayer was stricken from the record and replaced by one from the regular House chaplain.

ASO statement after passage of AB7

A statement read by the Autonomous Solidarity Organization after the passage of Assembly Bill 7 in the senate on May 19, 2011.  They are holding a funeral for voting rights in the senate gallery after adjournment.  Transcript is incomplete and likely contains errors due to low sound quality.


We gather here today, not to mourn, but to celebrate the beatiful but unnecessarily brief life of comprehensive voting rights and progressive voting legislation.  For some, the right to vote unimpeded can be remembered back to 1790, for most it is a far more recent memory.  From 1790 until May 19, 2011, voters' rights had many shining moments.  The people were there in 1810 when the last religious prerequisite to vote was eliminated.  We were also there in 1850 when property ownership and tax requirements were no longer necessary to befriend our beloved right.  In 1870 we the people continue to form a more perfect union and rose to the defense of our dear friend.  We passed the 15th amendment allowing our African-American brothers and sisters to experience the allure of the voting process.  When 1915 brought us ? we ruled to outlaw literacy tests aimed at preventing blacks and irish catholics from voting.  Then, in 1920, something truly wonderful happened, those who sought to put an end to the current oppression reached out and grabbed an olive branch extended by an alliance of the formerly oppressed.  It was only when this newly built coalition of people—dedicated and true freedom fighters, a fellowship that pledged their allegiance to liberty and justice for all—and our female counterparts, those who grant the privledge of life to us all, achieved the right to vote.

With this newly found impetus the now obvious concept of comprehensive voting rights began to roll.  From the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, granting voting rights to Native Americans, to the 24th amendment banning poll taxes in 1964, true equality including representation in our governing body was on the rise.  This momentum led to wonderful patriots such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. mounting a voter registration drive in Selma, Alabama that drew national attention to African-American voting rights.  The attention advanced the Voting Rights Act which was expanded in 1970, 1975, and 1982.  With the 26th amendment in 1971, and the Dunn vs Blumstein supreme court ruling of 1972 we ensured that those old enough to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country—for our country—could legally vote, and that no voter should be subject to unreasonably lengthy residence requirements.  Even as recently as 1995, our government has continue to make progress in voting legislation.  The motor voter law took effect allowing prospective voters to register while obtaining an ID.

Now, it is with heavy hearts that we bear witness to the birth of a truly rotten and heinous bill.  Where the motor voter act made it easier to register to vote while obtaining an ID, this voter ID bill makes it more difficult to register and vote while necessitating ID that many will not have reasonable access to.

But rejoice, because our friend is not truly dead.  If this ? has taught us anything, it is that with our help, voters' rights can be resurrected.  They can rise from the ashes to overcome those with malicious intent.  We can form our own coalition, a consolidation of the oppressed and in conjunction with those who genuinely are for voting to egalitarianism and the betterment of all people can share our memories of a fallen comrade.  With these memories we can guarantee that those who stood up and fought, those who lost their lives, and those who spilled blood paints the seven red stripes of our star-spangled banner, did not do so in vain.  Remember friends, that we can never truly prosper unless true of heart and soul can overcome any man-made obstacle.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

Sen Holperin on AB7

Comments by Wisconsin State Senator Jim Holperin during final debate on Assembly Bill 7 during the May 19, 2011 floor session.  He discusses an amendment offered by the Democrats which would have exempted senior citizens from the bill.  He also predicts the fractious effect the bill will have on small rural communities.

Thank you Mr. President.

Well, I dunno, we had a darn good amendment the other night exempting another category from the many categories that are exempted from the provisions of this bill: and that's Wisconsinites aged sixty-five and over who've lived in the same place for about four or five years or more.  I thought that was a great amendment.  Because older people are going to be very angry about this bill and so maybe in some sense I'm glad the amendment didn't pass.  We'll find out in the coming elections just how angry people are who've lived in the same place and the same community for years, perhaps decades, being asked to identify who they are.  And to have to be asked by people they've known for years, for decades.

I buy a lot of beer, Mr. President, at the grocery store.  And there is a requirement by many of the grocery store chains in this state to show evidence of your age before you can purchase alcohol.  And some of these grocery store chains have adopted this policy regardless of people's age because they want to treat everybody fairly; or at least at the start they wanted to treat everybody fairly.  But they soon discovered that people aged my age, in their seventies and eighties really resent being asked for identification when it's quite obvious who they are and how old they are.  And so now this practice has pretty much ended at the grocery stores where I shop and there's a little button on the cash register where the cashier simply presses it and it prints out like five-five, fifty-five.  No matter how old you are.  It puts an arbitrary age in there so that the cashier doesn't have to be confronted day after day with angry people, aged seventy, saying "you know how old the hell I am, look at me!"  And so the grocery store chains have found a way to deal with this issue.

And I predict, Mr. President, that's what's going to happen in a lot of our rural communities.  Oh, they'll ask for that photo ID the first time.  And they'll make sure that the neighbor they've known for twenty years is forced to produce that photo ID the first time.  But in subsequent elections, Ester's going to walk in, and those local clerks are going to be so tired of being the target of anger and resentment for being asked to present photo evidence from the neighbor who lives just down the street.  Who's voted at that same venue for years and years and years and they'll simply waive it off and say "Ester, we know, here's your ballot."

And so we will by this legislation, and unwittingly and unwilling and through no fault of our own create yet another class of people—it'll be a different class in every community—but it'll be a class of people who are not asked to produce their photo ID.  Who are simply waved through because the clerks know who they are and know that if they ask they're going to be the target of some resentment, and some resistance.  And so I don't know why we just don't include that class of people among the many other classes that we have simply determined are not going to commit fraud in this state.  We know those older people aged sixty-five and older who've lived at the same address; they're not going to commit fraud.  So why don't we just exempt them now like we've exempted military electors, overseas electors, electors who've lost their driver's license, electors who live in a community-based residential facility or a nursing home or an adult family-assisted living care center and the people who object to having their picture taken...  Gosh, we've got several categories of people we know are not going to commit fraud so we waive the provisions of this bill for them.  Why can't we add people aged sixty-five and over: simply reduce the probability that we're going to have a lot of angry senior citizens in this state who've lived at the same residence for a long time.  Why can't we do that?  So I know we're beyond the amendable stage, Mr. President, but gosh, we had this opportunity to make this a better bill and we didn't do it and I'm sorry for that.

Senator Robert Jauch points out that over 175,000 Wisconsin senior citizens do not have a driver's license and may not have the ID necessary to vote under Assembly Bill 7. (link)

Sen Coggs on AB7

Comments by Wisconsin State Senator Spencer Coggs during final debate on Assembly Bill 7 on May 19, 2011.  He points out the racist effects of the bill.

Thank you Mr. President and members.

AB7 is a suppression of the vote in the state of Wisconsin.  Today, there's an attempt to suppress the voice in the state of Wisconsin.  Mr. President and members, I have something to say and I'm gonna say it today.  When we debated last we talked about some really, really hot-button words like "apartheid", like "Jim Crow", and like "racism."  And so let's examine if there is some racism in this bill.  In 1968 the Turner commission came up with a definition of racism.  There's two kinds.  There's overt, intentional racism and there's benign: not caring enough for whether you are committing a racist act or not.  Now, AB7 will affect all of us in the state of Wisconsin.  But I have to tell you it's going to affect others more than some.  This bill has a chilling effect on the vote of the majority of the state of Wisconsin.  But when the majority gets the chill, the African-American community in the state of Wisconsin gets pneumonia.

Let me give you a personal example.  Recently, my wife and I want to go vote early.  And through no fault of hers, or mine, or any citizen in the state of Wisconsin they dropped her—my wife—off of the polling list.  Okay?  They told her she couldn't vote.  Now, we have provisional ballots, but the poll worker wasn't trained well enough to give her that option.  I was voting, and I had to go back in line and corroborate the fact that she was my wife: we sleep in the same bed, she lives in my—our house, get that straight—and where she says she lives, she lives.  And so she was allowed to vote because I corroborated the fact that she is who she is and she stays where she stays.  And this bill, they take out the ability for people to vouch for each other.  Something that the clerks begged to be put back into this bill, yet they didn't do it.

I take it personal.  I take it personal.  But let me not be too personal here.  Let me give you the example that really sticks me.  And it's someone that we all know in this body, it's Representative Robert Turner from Racine.  Robert Turner was born in Mississippi.  And he didn't want to stay in Mississipi, so he joined the military and went to fight in Vietnam.  He had a distinguished career, came back into Mississippi and there were hurdles for him to vote in the 60's.  Bob Turner must be sitting in his office, right now.  State Representative Bob Turner must be sitting in his office right now, saying "those of us who forget history are doomed, are condemned to repeat it."  Now, you're not going to see Bob Turner making a fuss.  But Bob Turner is the epitome of the black voter who has seen that if you came from down South to up North for a better life, to get away from the Jim Crow and the apartheid of Mississippi, and you come to this state hoping that you would get a better shake.  And now you, your children, and your grandchildren will have hurdles put in front of you.  This make no sense.

Now you want to talk about big picture, let's talk about big picture.  Is there fraud in the state of Wisconsin.  Well, oh my god, eleven people were convicted of voter fraud.  Felons who voted when they were still on probation and parole.  And they should not have voted.  We had 3.8 million people who voted.  So now you have eleven people holding hostage millions of people.  And so now you put in AB7 and it doesn't even address felon voting.

So what we've done is we have dropped an atomic bomb on a boll weevil hoping to protect the cotton.  Makes absolutely no sense at all.  When you drop a bomb like that, there's going to be collateral damage.  Oh yeah, collateral damage.  You might want to call it friendly fire.  But let tell you say something: there's nothing friendly about something that kills innocent people.  And this bill kills the spirit, kills the will, and kills the resolve of an electorate who only wants to exercise its constitutional right to vote.  And we take it away.  We take it away.

Mr. President, members of this august body: when the smoke clears you will remember this day.  Because you will recall—no, we will recall...

Video posted on Dailymotion by @nicknicemadison.

Note on Transcripts

As an editorial comment, I'd like to call attention to the start of some remarks of Senator Taylor's:

Mr. President and members, you know one of the things that I will say is that the GOP is good at messaging.  "Voter ID," of course!  On its face people say "well, Voter ID?"  But this bill is so much more than just require an ID.  This bill disenfrachises people.  This bill really is voter suppression.

Going back before even this legislative session, the key GOP political manoeuvre has been labelling voter ID and Assembly Bill 7 as a common-sense security measure.  It is hugely important that we fight this, even as we watch the bill sail through the legislature on straight party-line votes.  Even beyond the direct effects of this bill, Wisconsin Republicans stand to gain when the public sees this bill as reasonable.  We have to educate the voter who thinks the Republicans have backed off from extreme legislation after the collective bargaining fight, and have taken up more palatable bills.  The only good that can come from AB7 is if every tabled amendment and every floor vote costs the Republicans politically.  Wisconsin needs to know that the majority in the legislature hasn't slowed down in the slightest in pursuing the exact same goals they had in mind on February 11th, and that AB7 is a part of that.

This bill is slated to almost certainly pass the legislature first thing tomorrow morning.  From there, we'll see a short speech by Governor Walker upon signing, expounding the same GOP message that has driven this bill for the past decade.   AB7 will become law. Then, and only then, will the real debate start.  There will be court challenges.  There will be concrete instances of disenfranchisement in future elections.  There will be costs and long DMV lines and people struggling to leap these new hurdles.

During all of this we will be pointing to what our Democratic legislators have been doing this past week.  We'll point to amendments, remarks, and speeches which have all been ignored and tabled by the an unthinking majority.  The debate over the voter ID bill was always fated to end with the bill passing on party lines.  It's the debate over the voter ID law that we'll win.

I originally took the step of excerpting and transcribing the JFC remarks by Senator Jauch as a favor to a few people on twitter (and to fight insomnia). There is a weird band of us who will watch Wisconsin Eye during our lunch break, or sit in the gallery until the wee hours of the morning.  We've seen some inspiring things done and said by Wisconsin Democrats, and we've all informally tried to share these with the wider world.  Not everyone will skip to a specific timepoint in a six-hour committee hearing or trek to the capitol to watch a bill be debated.  The message that legislators are giving on the floors of the senate and the assembly will only count if we remix, excerpt, and archive these comments and make them accessible to every voter we can convince.

Sen Erpenbach on AB7

Wisconsin State Senator Jon Erpenbach's speech during debate on Assembly Bill 7 during the May 17, 2011 senate floor session. He discusses the absence of proven voter fraud in the state of Wisconsin addressed by this bill.

Thank you Mr. President. Unanimous consent to speak on the bill and the amendments.

If no objection...

Thank you very much, Mr. President. By the time, Mr. President, the senators in the outer ring are done with the session it's going to be easier to carry a concealed weapon that it will be to register to vote in the state of Wisconsin. That's a simple fact. Compare the two pieces of legislation. And by the way, I'm going to have an amendment up later Mr. President to make sure that you won't be able to carry a gun into a polling place. Uh, the voter suppression act—or the voter ID act, whatever you like to call it but it really is suppression—is not the way we do things in Wisconsin. It's a problem that has been created. It's a wag the dog type of a piece of legislation that plays on rumors, innuendo, and fear. That's all it does.

If you ask the question "where's the fraud?" we really haven't seen any. I would like to see real voter fraud here in the state of Wisconsin. We just don't see it. The attorney general investigated, two year investigation, and in the 2008 elections found eleven cases, eleven cases, of fraud and eight of those cases were felons who shouldn't have been voting. My guess, if you ask the felons, they probably were off paper but didn't know that the felony stays with them. We all know that convicted felons, unless you've been pardoned, can't vote.

The three other cases were people who voted twice, or voted improperly. So we're essentially down to three cases out of three million votes that were cast. Three cases. As a result of that we're going to be disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people throughout the state of Wisconsin in the election process. Legislative reference bureau said basically about twenty percent of the people who vote in elections right now won't qualify to vote under this include 178 thousand senior citizens. Who have better things to do than knock on your office door and lobby for these changes that we're trying to make, but believe me, you know they will. Everybody who is here legally has the right to vote. But you're taking that away.

You're taking it away based on the fact that you're hearing things, whether it's on talk radio or you're hearing things in an echo chamber that aren't true. That are not true. Show me the busloads of people who are being bussed into districts to vote illegally. I've heard that one, show it to me. Where is the fraud? There isn't any. Hundreds of thousands of people will stay home because of this legislation, because you're going after essentially three cases after a two-year investigation by the Attorney General's office.

The whole idea in the state of Wisconsin when it comes to vote is to make it—obviously to have our elections be legitimate, no doubt about that—but to make it as easy as possible to vote. To make sure that if you do want to engage the political process you can, but do so legally. We have a pretty good system right now.

Legislation like this and others that we're going to be dealing with and have dealt with based on the lowest common denominator in this state, based on nothing more than fear, based on nothing more than creating a problem, is wrong. There will be some people who will refuse to get a government ID. You're taking them right out of the process. There'll be other people who can't get a government ID, because they can't get someplace during normal business hours. So you're taking them out of the process. People who live in their home for 27 days can't vote where they live. As a matter of fact, I have a question for the senator from the ninth if he'd yield to a question.

Will the senator from the ninth yield to a question?

Leibham: I will yield, Mr. President.

Erpenbach: We had a little bit of debate in our caucus about this, and we're trying to figure it out. It says you need to be in your residence 28 consecutive days.

Leibham: That's correct.

Erpenbach: Does that mean I need to be there 28 days, if I go aways for a week and a half...

Leibham: It needs to be your place of residence for consecutive 28 days.

Erpenbach: So I need to be in my house for 28 days. So in other words...

Leibham: No.

Erpenbach: ...the legislature, Mr. President, is grounding me for 28 days, in order to vote in an election where I am a legal resident. It makes absolutely no sense, Mr. President.

Leibham: A response, Mr. President. That's not what the bill...

Erpenbach: I'm sorry, I've got the floor Mr. President. And I, yeah, you answered the question. So I have to stay in my house for 28 consecutive days. That doesn't make any sense at all. If I live in the senator from the twenty-fifth's district and I move to the senator from the fifteenth's district, in order to vote legally before 28 days I have to go back to the senator from the twenty-fifth's district, where I legally don't live. But my vote will count there. It makes no sense at all. Absolutely no sense at all.

This legislation is designed to do one thing and one thing only Mr. President, and it's to go after people who don't vote for Republicans. It's pure and simple. You can see it in other pieces of legislation too, Mr. President.

I've no idea how this is constitutional. I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure the lawyers on both sides of the aisle are going to have a good time with this when it ends up in court.

The bill's going to cost seven million dollars even though we're broke. Even though we're broke it's going to cost seven million dollars. I don't know where the governor's going to come up with seven million dollars. I don't know. But we're broke, remember? That's why we had to have all this other onerous legislation before us, because we were broke, yet this is going to cost seven million dollars. In the substitute amendment, Mr. President, we provide six hundred and fifty thousand dollars to educate people. Because at the very least, if we quiz the state senate, none of us would pass the test on what this legislation actually does. It is so confusing.

So we're supposed to throw this legislation on the governor's desk, he's going to sign it. Some of it is going to be implemented before the recall elections, and it's guaranteed mass chaos at the polls. We all know that, it's kind of designed to do that. At the very least we can include six hundred and fifty thousand dollars just for general education as to what it means. What this legislation does, what ID works, what ID doesn't work.

Well, it sounds good to say well—as the senator from the sixth pointed out—you need an ID for blockbuster, you need an ID for the library, you need an ID to get on the plane, and so on and so forth. For the most part, the IDs that you need, they're all corporate policy, when you're dealing with credit card companies, whatever the case. That's their policy. That's what they decide to do.

As the senator from the sixth so happily pointed out, this is my vote, this is your vote. And the majority party, Mr. President, is setting a policy that you're going to have to jump through a lot of hoops. This legislation affects people who are not the majority of this body. This legislation affects people who are not the average, in the state senate. Yet we are supposed to vote on legislation that's going to take them completely out of the game. I don't know why we have the right to do that. Where did we get our oath of office, where do we in our constitutional obligations, where did we when we were sworn into office gain the right to take away somebody's ability to vote? Someone's right to vote? You show me where we have the authority to do that. Because we don't, we simply don't.

As the minority leader pointed out, the substitute amendment corrects a lot of problems. It makes a very, very bad bill based on rumors, based on innuendo, based on lies, based on things that people have heard on talk radio and makes it better. I don't know what the majority party is afraid of, Mr. President, I really don't. And again, I'm going to ask somebody, somebody who supports this legislation, anybody who supports this legislation, to show me the widespread fraud across the state of Wisconsin. Show me where elections are being stolen. Show me. We're not going to see any, Mr. President. Eleven cases, in a two year investigation, eight of them felonies, people with felonies who shouldn't have votes, three other improperly cast votes. That's it, after two years of the Attorney General's time. So I beg the majority party, you show me where the fraud is.

Right now, Mr. President, if there is a lack of confidence in our election cycle and our election system it's sitting in Waukesha county. It's not throughout the state of Wisconsin. That people doubt what's going and "Oh, the campaigns are rigged" and stuff like that, it's not because of somebody who showed up illegally to vote, voted.

I would really hope, at the very least, the majority party would seriously consider our amendments. Obviously we don't like the bill, we've never supported the bill, we don't like the idea of putting up roadblocks for someone's right to vote here in the state.

Video posted to youtube by @nicknicemadison.

Additional comments by Sen Taylor on AB7

Wisconsin State Senator Lena Taylor's speech during debate on Assembly Bill 7 during the May 17, 2011 senate floor session. She is arguing in favor of a substitute amendment to the bill.

Thank you Mr. President.

Mr. President and members, you know one of the things that I will say is that the GOP is good at messaging.  "Voter ID," of course!  On its face people say "well, Voter ID?"  But this bill is so much more than just require an ID.  This bill disenfrachises people.  This bill really is voter suppression.  This bill is really voter confusion.  This bill is really anything other than just requiring an ID.

And I wish that it would be reported as voter suppression or voter confusion or voter restrictions.  And I wish all of the things that will affect individuals in smaller communities that won't have DOTs in order for individuals open at the various hours that need be in order for them to be able to go and get a driver's license as easily accessible as others.  I wish that it would be reported the number of individuals who are homeless.  Who will not be able to use the homeless shelter's address that they live in so that technically they will be denied their ability to vote.  And the thing that gets me with that is the number of veterans, you know soldiers, you know the reason that we are able to pledge allegiance to the flag and that we have our freedoms.  How many are homeless, and the effect that we will have on them and other individuals who are homeless like them.

I think of individuals who are transitioning, and maybe getting alcohol and drug addiction assistance, but maybe in a transitional living facility and how many will be affected by this bill.  This is way beyond ID.  It's suppression, it's disenfranchisement, and it's deliberate.

I think about the cost as we defund education.  As we tell seniors that they have to choose between their rent and their medication because of what has been threatened to happen with SeniorCare.  That we could spend millions of dollars on a voter suppression bill, voter confusion bill, voter restriction bill.  But we've defunded education.

I think of how easy we want to make it to own a gun and to carry.  And how many hoops we want individuals to go through in order to vote.

And I always hear individuals speak about voter fraud.  And I thought "hmm, what kind of voter fraud has happened in Wisconsin?"  And what we know is that none of the voter fraud that happened in Wisconsin is addressed by voter ID.  Because what were the types?  Five people were prosecuted.  Two for registering too many people.  One—no, I'm sorry two—for double voting; a sixty-year-old and a fifty-four-year-old.  And based on their last name it doesn't normally fit the picture that the GOP says.  And one who was a felon on probation and voting.  So would an ID prevent the absentee ballot and voting at the poll, which is how the people double voted?  No, wouldn't stop that.  The multiple registrations; ID at the poll wouldn't stop that.  Probation...

Senator from the fourth, senator from the twenty-seventh.

Erpenbach: Consent to lift the call, is that the...

Yes.

Erpenbach: To lift the call.

Yes, yes.  With no objection, the call will be lifted.  The senator from the fourth may continue.

Taylor: Thank you Mr. President.

And the person who was on probation, does showing an ID at the poll change that?  No.  So I was wondering: if addressing the issue of voter fraud is what you say, then shouldn't you have a bill that addresses probation agents speaking to their clients and reminding them that they're on probation and they can't vote?  Isn't that really what the bill should do?  And would it cost us millions of dollars to do that?  It would not.

This isn't about identification, just be honest with the people.  I continue to rise on bill after bill to say: "don't lie to the Wisconsinites."  Just be honest.  Don't say it's about voter ID, say it's about you're afraid to let us play the game by real rules.  Because you're afraid you will continue to lose in those elections.  That what you really want to do is suppress the vote of individuals who don't think like you or look you.  Just tell the truth that it's not that you want to stop the fraud, because the fraud are the things that I just spoke of.  That's it, in our state.  Your bill doesn't address that; your bill puts restriction after restriction after restriction on Wisconsinites to vote.

I find it disheartening that people have come through so many places in our history in order to be able to have the right to vote.  I'm almost speechless because I can't believe in Wisconsin—where in 1865 a guy who looked like me who was from Milwaukee went to vote and wouldn't leave until he had the right vote.  And they denied him.  His name was Ezekiel Gillespie and in 1865 when they denied Ezekiel the right to vote he sued the city of Milwaukee.  And what I find amazing is in 1866 there was more thought for preserving individuals' ability to vote and have access to the right to vote than the individuals in the outer ring.  Because in 1866 the supreme court of Wisconsin gave that man the right to vote.  Even the individuals who originally did our constitution in Wisconsin included the right for black men to vote.  Had to be redone because, you know, they weren't quite ready yet.  But it wasn't until the seventies that our senate was graced with a person of color.  And seven—mid to late seventies—with a woman.   It wasn't even right away from the 1860s that women got the right to vote.  But that we are going back to frankly putting a poll tax on individuals.

I always heard the phrase that if you didn't remember your history you would repeat it.  But I didn't think that I would live with people, that I would serve with people, who would be so flip about taking the constitutional rights of individuals to exercise their right to vote under the pretense that it's an ID, when it really is restrictions and suppression, and know it.

What I hope is that Wisconsinites will see that you say one thing and that the dishonesty of what you say rises.  What I know is that many people are not watching us on Wisconsin Eye.  And all of the tape that the media does won't show, that when it gets in print it won't speak about, all of the restrictions and make it really clear to individuals that this is much further than just "have and ID."  It won't talk about and help people to understand the depth of the effect on people who won't have the money to not only get the ID but to get the birth certificate in order to get the ID.  The hurdles that have been created.  Hurdle after hurdle after hurdle for a constitutional right that people have.

This substitute amendment is an effort to find a middle ground.  That respects that you have the votes to do something that's not needed, a solution looking for a problem.  But in a way that does not strip Wisconsinites of the constitutional right to vote.  That doesn't put barrier after barrier in place.

It's easy to sit in this chamber and not think about the effect that this may have on someone whose in your district or not in your district.  But I'm sure that you're going to learn of the experiences.  I mean, I even think of the time that I needed to have someone vouch for me.  One of the alderman in my community, because we had session I needed to come to Madison.  Somehow or other I didn't have my ID when I ran in the building and I had to get someone to vouch and say "Hi, I am Lena, tell them Kathleen, I'm Lena Taylor."  And they vouched for me so I could vote.  But now, a couple that's married longer than I've been alive won't be able to say "yeah, that's my wife, that's my husband."  They won't be able to help the nuns who may or may not have identification.  But I'm most offended by the veterans, because if anyone pretends there's not a homeless issue with our veterans, that there are not mental health challenges with our veterans from the experiences that they have had and that those populations will be affected by your bill.

I assume you can sleep at night.  I think that Senator Jauch said it has similarities to apartheid and Jim Crow.  I know I've always heard the phrase "if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck."  In the end, people will be disenfranchised.  And our priorities as legislators who take an oath is that we should protect the constitution, we should protect the right to vote.  And if we say it's based on "we want to prevent fraud," then address the issue.  Don't put hurdles in front of Wisconsinites.  You should be ashamed.  You should be ashamed that you choose to disenfranchise Wisconsinites under a false sentence of the message that you give of "Voter ID."  It's shameful.  You are on the wrong side of history.  You do parallel to the examples that have been given and provided.  It would be different if what you stated was true, but it's false.  And it will show itself to be so.  And you, you will have to answer on the outer ring for your record and your choice.  And I hope that people will see beyond just the phrase that you give of "voter ID."  But they will see the individuals that are affected by what you do so they can call it for what it is and you will have to live with your record and your choices and the disenfranchisement that you provided for thousands of Wisconsinites.  Shame on you.

Video posted to vimeo by @nicknicemadison.

Sen Taylor on Assembly Bill 7

Wisconsin State Senator Lena Taylor's speech during debate on Assembly Bill 7 during the May 17, 2011 senate floor session.  She is arguing in favor of a motion to return the bill to committee.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise to say that the bill should be sent back to committee, for not just all of the reasons that have been stated that are so true, but just to reiterate some items that I said before that I think are important measures.

One of the things that the senator from the 9th spoke about is that this bill has been crafted based on what they've done in Indiana.  And it particular stated that what they've done in Indiana has passed the muster of the court and the court has shown that it is not unconstitutional.  Well, I think a little closer reading would show that that's not necessarily true.  That's not necessarily our particular situation.  As a matter of fact, what the court stated, the court made it clear that such laws could still be challenged by particular groups and individuals burdened by the law.  Like elderly persons born out of state, persons who because of economic or other personal limitations may find it difficult to secure a copy of their birth certificate, homeless people.  Those are groups that we have been talking about all evening.  It also went on to say that the photo ID law, a photo ID law that burdens voters more than Indiana could potentially also be challenged.  The high courts of other states have also shown that their state constitutions protect voter rights more than federal law.  Indiana makes it a blanket "you need an ID, you can have access to an ID."  They don't do the "sign the poll-book".  They don't do some of the additional burdens that we have put in place.

I guess maybe there's a part of me as a lawyer that should say thank you for making it worse than Indiana, so that it can be challenged.  But what I think I'm going to say is thank you, for doing it in front of the students, the next generation of leaders.  Who look at you today, on the outer circle, as you take back not once century, like the senator from the 25th said, at least a couple.  That the history that we constantly try to walk away from: Jim Crow and the remnants of slavery and racism.  That you take us back, arrogantly and confidently and without any blink of the eye.  I'm so glad that the young people from your districts see you for who you are.  I'm so glad that they hear the argument that says that students will have to go through unnecessary burdens.  That seniors will have to go through unnecessary burdens.  Not to go to the water park.  Not to just have a good time, but for a constitutional right to vote.

See, in this building, since this administration and this GOP leadership has taken over, we have denied access to this building and we have even denied elected officials--not in this house, but in the other house--the ability to vote.  Elected officials were denied the ability to vote by ramming it through rapidly.  But now today students, leaders of tomorrow, people from the districts of the senators who sit before you.  I am so glad, Mr. President, that they are here to see us deny Wisconsin citizens the right to vote.  To not take our motto of Lady Forward, but instead to take us backwards.

The part that I'm excited about is that it's not just students in college, it's senate scholars, those in high school.  Who will be able to vote really soon.  Who will be able to say "Well, I know it was called a voter ID bill, but instead it went so much further than just an ID."  They've probably learned much more, and have heard much more about voter suppression, disenfranchisement, restrictions, than they've wanted to.

But I want to leave us with another piece that I think is really important.  Whether you're reading from the New York Times, where it says [in an April 26 editorial] that "Republicans spread fear of a non-existent flood of voter fraud... the largest legislative effort to scale back voting rights in a century."  Or whether it's Florida: "The burdens of Florida's misguided election bill will fall disproportionately on the shoulders of low-income minority voters, renters, students: eligible voters that already face the biggest hurdles to vote." [Brennan Center for Justice]

How amazing that no matter where you turn, where these bills are coming up, that the talking points are the same.  That those that are affected are the same.  I'm convinced that the challenge of the Georgia law which established that a fee between twenty and thirty-five dollars for a photo ID card, and included a fee waiver.  I'm convinced that when the district court blocked that law, saying that the fees turned it into an unconstitutional poll tax, that we will be similar to Georgia.  But they had to go and fix it, and we have some signs of the things that they fixed.

But they did and undertook a significant voter education and outreach measure.  We must do that.  Eight months to inform the entire state is not significant.  It's not thorough.  It's not the forward motto that we stand for.  There's no question that this bill needs to go back to committee.  That it's not ready for prime-time.  And at the very least, it does not support the values of Wisconsin.

I said earlier that the fraud that our Attorney General and the District Attorney for my county spoke about in articles, none of that, even though the senator from the first has suggested otherwise, none of that is addressed by this bill.  It was double-voting, and ID won't do that.  And the senator from the first even said something about felons.  An ID, unless we're going to start making you wear an "F" on your forehead or on your driver's license—I mean, we're going backwards, will we be going back to that?—there's no way that an ID identifies that.

We should be good stewards.  We should be stately people who encourage citizen engagement.  We should want to see our citizens voting, engaged.  We should be encouraging our young people to be informed and to vote.  This bill doesn't do that.  This bill needs to go back to committee so that we can make this bill a reflection of the way that we do things in Wisconsin.  Way before any of us, including even the senator from the twenty-sixth was alive, back in the 1800s we did the right thing in Wisconsin for women, and for people of color.  And we expanded the right to vote.  Let us not, in 2011, go backwards and disenfranchise people.  And as stated in the article from the New York Times let us not be in a place where we are creating legislation that is the largest legislative effort in the history of our state—and as the senator from the thirty-first stated, potentially our nation—to scale back voting rights in a century.

The speech is available on youtube, excerpted by @nicknicemadison.

Sen Jauch's Speech

Text of Wisconsin state senator Robert Jauch's comments near the end of the May 9 Joint Finance Committee meeting on 2011 Assembly Bill 7.

Thank you very much Madame Co-Chair.

Let me just give you a few examples of how difficult it is to get a voter ID from DMV.  If you live anywhere between, if you live in Poplar, you can go to Superior.  But if you're in Iron River, it's from eleven to two on the second Wednesday of every month.  So if you're in Port Wing, you've got to find a way to get down there and be lucky enough.  Ashland: 7:45 to 5:15.  Hurley, it's only open the second day, the second Wednesday of the month.  Interesting; if you're in Hurley, or  Siren: second Wednesday of the month.  It's possible that you get a provisional ballot because you don't have a voter ID, but you may have to travel sixty to eighty miles one way in order to get your voter ID and then have to return that round trip.  Because there is not access, unlike Indiana that has far more DMV centers than we do.  Spooner: 8:45 to 3pm first Wednesday of the month.  Port Falls, second and fifth thursday.  Now it was Ellsworth, in Pierce County, third tuesday of January, March, May, July, September, and in November.

Now, just the other day Senator Leibham offered a sensible ammendment, we all voted for it, that would expand the opportunity for individuals to get driver's licenses.  Because DMV is overscheduled, there aren't enough DMV centers, there aren't enough staff.  So if there aren't enough staff already to provide driver's license services how are we going to make sure that we provide something as basic as a voter identification card to individuals who don't have drivers' licenses but that is the only means by which they can get it?

The fact is that we're taking the most sacred of rights, the right to vote, and burying it.  This is nothing more than an attack on voters in Wisconsin.  In April of 1970 I was arrested in Kiev.  I was arrested for taking a picture of an egg line.  And I and three other, two other individuals were taken to a police station surrounded by military and police officers and then we were transferred in different vehicles to a jail where we spent three hours interrogated by an individual in Russian.  Now you say, why is he giving us this whole story?  Because I have the same sick feeling in my stomach today that I had in Kiev in 1970.  I can't distinguish the Soviet Union from Madison, Wisconsin.  Because of what this body is doing to make voting more difficult.  I went to Vietnam.  I served there for a year.  I came back with the emotional and physical scars of that war.  You bring shame to my service.  You do dishonor to what I did, in protecting the rights of citizens.  And the amazing thing is that you're, that some of the members are gleeful about it.  They don't think about the consequences.

Should it be difficult?  Should it be necessary to prove who you are?  Yes, when you get in on it, we all agree on that.  Should it be difficult for you to get that proof?  No.  And yet that's what this bill does.

So we had a staff person tell us earlier that her 91 mother, 91-year-old mother, is not in a community-based center.  Is not in a nursing home.  Is not in an assisted living center.  She happens to be living in her apartment, but she doesn't get out much.  So it'd be up to her daughter to make sure that she gets her down to the DMV office, get that voter ID, get a copy of that voter ID, because she always votes absentee.  Why?  Why? Why are you requiring that 80, 90-year-old woman to have to go through those hoops?  There are some states that have an age limit.  They don't really, they aren't frightened by 65-year-olds and 70-year-olds that have voted for forty years, and take democracy more seriously that those of you who make a joke out of it.  They vote each and every year, but now they have to go through another hoop.  They don't have a driver's license.  Someone's got to drive them to Superior or Iron River where they have to wait for how long?  To go through another hurdle, to go through another barrier.  Why?  Was there some investigation that showed that we've got a gang of senior citizens who are out to vote twice?  You're making it hard for them to vote once.

I'm disgusted by what you're doing.  I am absolutely... I'm embarrased by what you're doing.  And you should be too.  Because it doesn't make Wisconsin a better place.  It doesn't improve the integrity of our elections if in fact people are disenfrachised.  If in fact legitimate voters are denied simply because they don't follow all the hoops.  They've lived in the state 10, 28 days, they just don't have the right card.  They can prove who they are.  The clerk knows who they are.  And that's not good enough for you.  You want to hide behind that poll.  Explain to the person, who... explain to the person that in fact we're really making it harder for people to vote.  Because when they have the card, it's just not the right card. 

History... history is going to judge us more than the next election, or the next two elections, or the next three elections.  Or, or more with a greater degree of measuring our real impact on life in Wisconsin, than people who answer the poll: "should somebody have an identification card?"  History is going to judge us on whether we strengthened democracy or weakened it.  Today you're weakening it.  And history's going to lump the Republicans in Wisconsin, and in the other states where this has been done, along with a long line of public officials who have used their power and in fact abused their power to deny people of the right to vote.  And it started a long time ago when a bunch of rich men thought that you had to own land in order to vote.  Then it went on to a bunch of men who thought that women shouldn't be able to vote.  Then it went to those folks in Mississippi and Alabama and other places that didn't think blacks ought to vote.  And they too put restrictions.  There's no different in what you're doing an apartheid.  You say "Well, we're not racists."  Has nothing to do with color.  It has nothing to do with color.

Darling: Senator, I would ask you to watch your comments because you're crossing the line by inferring that we're being racist.  So could you please...

Jauch: I'm going to explain that, I don't think you're racists.  I'm going to say I don't think it's racial.  The common theme between all of the examples I used is that you had individuals who used their power to deprive people of the right to vote because they wouldn't vote the way they wanted them.  That's what's in common.  It's not because you're racists.  It's because you're using your power to, you're exceeding your power.  And that's wrong.  And it's unnecessary.  And it's shameful in a state like Wisconsin that has been a model for the rest of the country.  This isn't the Wisconsin we know and love.  It doesn't need to be where we're at.

One individual... let me and I'll conclude.  At one of the public hearings a gentleman with a strong accent explained that he had been in Wisconsin for eight years.  Said "I've been a citizen for five.  I love Wisconsin.  I'm a Waukesha firefighter."  He grew up in Germany.  He grew up in East Germany.  And he said "I knew when the Berlin Wall went down.  I know what democracy didn't look like."  And this isn't what democracy looks like.