Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Wisconsin votes, and the partisan divide on voting and health becomes a chasm

Wisconsin 2020 primary voters

Voters practice social distancing at the limited number of polling places open in Wisconsin.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Just a dozen days ago, making it safer and easier to vote during the coronavirus outbreak was a totally bipartisan cause. But once that sentiment faced its first practical test, in Wisconsin, polarized partisanship snapped back with extraordinary intensity — posing yet another threat to a fair 2020 election and Americans' confidence in the democratic process.

With long lines of socially distanced voters at a shrunken roster of short-staffed polling places on Tuesday, from sprawling Milwaukee to tiny Moquah, the parties delivered opposite messages to those confused and angry about why the primary was even happening and anxious about the medical risks of doing their civic duty.

Republicans — having kept the primary on track thanks to last-minute victories in a state Legislature, state Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court all with friendly conservative majorities — pressed their supporters to go to the polls in force.

Democrats — rebuffed in their efforts to postpone the in-person voting and extend the time for returning absentee ballots — told their supporters to stay safely at home and canceled all their get-out-the-vote plans, which were aimed at mobilizing turnout in urban areas.


At a time when the country is counting on rational, collaborative decision-making at all levels of government to combat a historic public health crisis, the split provided a sobering warning.

"If one side of the political equation is willing to risk their voters' lives by encouraging them to engage in highly-risky in person voting and the other side isn't, then there are massive problems that await the country in November," progressive analyst Sam Stein of the Daily Beast tweeted.

"The good news is that other states have time to avoid a Wisconsin-style FUBAR," wrote conservative analyst and Bulwark editor Charles Sykes. But the bad news is "Wisconsin is a dry run for what's coming for the rest of the country in November: Elections roiled in partisan rancor, dysfunction, voter suppression, and questionable legitimacy."

The suddenly cavernous political divide over voting and health was a reminder of the central truism in the voting rights debate: Republicans are confident they do best when fewer people vote, while Democrats like their chances better with a bigger turnout.

But the fight in Wisconsin looked all the more remarkable because of what happened just two weeks ago: Both sides in Congress broke from their partisan patterns long enough to provide $400 million to expand voting by mail, early in-person voting, online registration and other measures to smooth elections during a public health emergency — Republicans joining Democrats in recognizing the status quo could prevent millions from taking part in the presidential election.

When an unusually unified coalition of democracy reform groups described that as an inadequate downpayment — and asserted five times as much would be needed to prepare for the unique circumstances — Republicans initially sounded ready to go along with another big cash infusion.

But congressional GOP support for more election assistance has softened in recent days, even as bipartisan consensus has formed behind the need to produce another economic rescue package at the Capitol in the next month.

The money has become a sticking point in the early negotiations since President Trump derided some Democrats' efforts to make the states expand their absentee voting as a condition for a federal grab.

That would produce "levels of voting that if you ever agree to it, you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again," he said on "Fox & Friends" a week ago, and at a Friday news conference he asserted without evidence that "a lot of people cheat with mail-in voting."

Some Republicans are taking that as a sign Trump will not support an additional appropriation, and their defense of the president only intensified since several of the most progressive voting rights groups described his comments as a confession the GOP was more interested in voter suppression than public safety.

"It's clear that he would rather force people to put themselves at risk in order to exercise their right to vote than ensure that every eligible American can safely cast their ballot," said Ryan Thomas of Stand Up America, one of the groups lobbying loudest for another $1.6 billion in election aide — and hoping to motivate their core supporters on the left to apply grassroots pressure as well.

But leaders of some other influential progressive organizations pushing for the money, among them Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice, have pressed their lobbying colleagues to tamp down on the inflammatory talk for risk of alienating influential Republicans who have been helpful so far.

"Such rhetoric is, frankly, not very not helpful," he said on a conference call with members of the coalition last week.

Topping the list of Republicans key to the success of the effort are Roy Blunt, a member of the Senate majority leadership who was once the top elections official in Missouri, and Rodney Davis of Illinois, the senior GOP member of the House committee with jurisdiction over election policy. And in recent days both have sounded ambivalent about backing more money.

Such partisan pressures are intensifying on both sides, and in venues from coast to coast.

After Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger last week mailed absentee ballot request forms to all of Georgia's 6.9 million active voters, for example, he got such enormous pushback from fellow Republicans in power in the state that on Monday he convened a special task force to investigate allegations of fraudulent use of the vote-by-mail option.

He conceded election cheating is rare in the state but said it could flare up during the May 19 primary, when voting in person is being discouraged. "We want to make sure," he said, "that troublemakers can't do things that don't abide by that principle of one person, one vote."

Voting in person was discouraged in Wisconsin as well, and more than 1.3 million absentee ballots were mailed out in recent weeks as the legal and political maneuvering over the primary intensified along with the spread of infection.

But they must be postmarked by Tuesday night in order to be counted under the last of the partisan victories the GOP scored Monday.

In its first ruling connected to the coronavirus pandemic, the Supreme Court refused to continue absentee voting for six days, saying the federal judge who ordered that extension had exceeded his authority. The five justices named by Republican presidents formed the majority in favor of doing what the state GOP wanted, while all four Democratic appointees would have done what the Democrats asked — a sign the court may struggle against charges of partisanship handling future challenges to election laws while the Covid-19 crisis persists.

"The court's suggestion that the current situation is not 'substantially different' from 'an ordinary election' boggles the mind," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent.

The court ruled hours after the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down — with four conservative justices voting one way and the two liberals the other — Democratic Gov. Tony Evers last-minute executive order postponing the in-person voting. The challenge to his authority was brought by the GOP-controlled Legislature, which over the weekend rebuffed the governor's call for special legislation delaying the primary.

Justice Daniel Kelly, who is up for reelection Tuesday in the second-most-prominent race of the day, abstained Monday night.

Also on the ballot are 77 pledged delegates in the Democratic presidential primary, and former Vice President Joe Biden is favored to win with ease no matter the turnout. That would push Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont a step closer to out of the race.

No matter who wins the nomination, however, Wisconsin looms as a central Electoral College battleground, another motivation for both sides to win now in order to position themselves best for the fall.

Read More

​DCF Commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly.

DCF Commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly speaks to the gathering at an adoption ceremony in Torrington.

Laura Tillman / CT Mirror

What’s Behind the Smiles on National Adoption Day

In the past 21 years, I’ve fostered and adopted children with complex medical and developmental needs. Last year, after a grueling 2,205 days navigating the DCF system, we adopted our 7yo daughter. This year, we were the last family on the docket for National Adoption Day after 589 days of suspense. While my 2 yo daughter’s adoption was a moment of triumph, the cold, empty courtroom symbolized the system’s detachment from the lived experiences of marginalized families.

National Adoption Day often serves as a time to highlight stories of joy and family unification. Yet, behind the scenes, the obstacles faced by children in foster care and the families that support them tell a more complex story—one that demands attention and action. For those of us who have navigated the foster care system as caregivers, the systemic indifference and disparities experienced by marginalized children and families, particularly within BIPOC and disability communities, remain glaringly unresolved.

Keep ReadingShow less
Framing "Freedom"

hands holding a sign that reads "FREEDOM"

Photo Credit: gpointstudio

Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands resting on another.

Amid headlines about Epstein, survivors’ voices remain overlooked. This piece explores how restorative justice offers CSA survivors healing and choice.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

What Do Epstein’s Victims Need?

Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news, along with anyone who may have known about, enabled, or participated in his systematic child sexual abuse. Yet there is significantly less information and coverage on the perspectives, stories and named needs of these survivors themselves. This is almost always the case for any type of coverage on incidences of sexual violence – we first ask “how should we punish the offender?”, before ever asking “what does the survivor want?” For way too long, survivors of sexual violence, particularly of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), have been cast to the wayside, treated like witnesses to crimes committed against the state, rather than the victims of individuals that have caused them enormous harm. This de-emphasis on direct survivors of CSA is often presented as a form of “protection” or “respect for their privacy” and while keeping survivors safe is of the utmost importance, so is the centering and meeting of their needs, even when doing so means going against the grain of what the general public or criminal legal system think are conventional or acceptable responses to violence. Restorative justice (RJ) is one of those “unconventional” responses to CSA and yet there is a growing number of survivors who are naming it as a form of meeting their needs for justice and accountability. But what is restorative justice and why would a CSA survivor ever want it?

“You’re the most powerful person I’ve ever known and you did not deserve what I did to you.” These words were spoken toward the end of a “victim offender dialogue”, a restorative justice process in which an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse had elected to meet face-to-face for a facilitated conversation with the person that had harmed her. This phrase was said by the man who had violently sexually abused her in her youth, as he sat directly across from her, now an adult woman. As these two people looked at each other at that moment, the shift in power became tangible, as did a dissolvement of shame in both parties. Despite having gone through a formal court process, this survivor needed more…more space to ask questions, to name the impacts this violence had and continues to have in her life, to speak her truth directly to the person that had harmed her more than anyone else, and to reclaim her power. We often talk about the effects of restorative justice in the abstract, generally ineffable and far too personal to be classifiable; but in that instant, it was a felt sense, it was a moment of undeniable healing for all those involved and a form of justice and accountability that this survivor had sought for a long time, yet had not received until that instance.

Keep ReadingShow less