Wisconsin Republicans have launched another attack in their all out war on democracy.
Their goal is crystal clear: To suppress the vote of those who don’t favor their far-right agenda, hide special interest money pouring into our elections, and allow even more money in – all for their political benefit.

In the Scott Walker era, the right to vote has been increasingly under attack, and each time, we’ve had to fight tooth-and-nail to combat their extremism.

Call to action: Tell the state Legislature to stop their War on Voting in Wisconsin.

Sign our petition and join us as we raise our voices and say “Enough is enough!”

Consider: In the fall 2012 elections, Republicans won five of the state’s eight congressional seats, six of 11 contested state Senate races, and 56 of 76 contested Assembly seats — despite getting fewer votes statewide than Democrats in all three categories.

This system for letting politicians pick their voters, rather than the other way around, has long been opposed by Common Cause in Wisconsin, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Their cause got a boost in mid-August with the publication of editorials in papers including the Wisconsin State Journal, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Green Bay Press-Gazette, Appleton Post-Crescent, Beloit Daily News, La Crosse Tribune, Chippewa Herald, Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, Oshkosh Northwestern and Janesville Gazette.

...


“Granting redistricting power to an unelected, appointed board would do little to remove the redistricting process from the political realm,” wrote Lazich in an column run by the State Journal and Journal Sentinel. “Rather, it would merely move the political maneuverings to an unaccountable board, beyond the reach of the electorate.” In other words: If you don’t like what the party in power does to make it harder to vote its members out, all you have to do is vote them out.

The response from State Journal readers helped answer the Janesville Gazette’s question. All 13 letters that ran the following Sunday sided with the paper and against Sen. Lazich, with some noting the irony of Lazich using the banner of democracy to deny a public hearing.

Boulder wants to break away from our current, coal-dominated utility--Xcel Energy--to create a local electric utility based on renewable energy. Feasibility studies have shown we could reduce our carbon emissions by over 50% immediately by shifting to cleaner energy. And we wouldn’t have to pay more than we do now, because we can afford a lot more renewable energy if we’re not paying for Xcel’s enormous profit margins. This is an incredible opportunity to create a landmark model for how communities all over the country can take control of their energy future.

Only one thing stands in our way: to stop us, Xcel Energy has placed a misleading measure on our fall ballot that would kill our local electric utility process dead in its tracks-- and they're prepared to spend possibly millions to win. They know our victory would inspire communities across the country to follow suit and create their own cleaner, cheaper utilities based on renewable energy. They don’t want other communities wondering what they could afford if they stop paying millions in profits to the utility industry.



Back in 2011, our community did something no other community had ever done before: we voted to explore taking control of our power supply for the sole purpose of lowering our impact on the planet. Xcel Energy spent about $1 million dollars on that election, but lost--because a committed group of community advocates and a small nonprofit that engages young people in politics won the day. Outspent 10-to-1, the grassroots coalition registered voters, knocked on doors, and made thousands of phone calls.

With voter approval, the city launched an extensive analysis and found that it could get cleaner, cheaper power that was just as reliable all on its own.

Hospitals and health systems are major vessels of medical waste and massive consumers of energy. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, they are some of the most “complex and energy-intensive facilities” in the country. Major heating and lighting needs, 24/7 occupancy, and large, energy-sucking machines lead hospitals to have more than 2.5 times the energy intensity and carbon dioxide emissions of commercial office buildings.

Health Care Without Harm has helped organize more than 600 hospitals and health systems around the “First, do no harm” motto through the Healthier Hospitals Initiative — a coalition designed to improve environmental health and sustainability in the sector. Jeff Thompson leads Gundersen Health System, based in La Crosse, Wis., one of the vanguard hospitals within HHI. Thompson and his team have set one of the most ambitious energy goals of any health system in the country — by 2014, Gundersen plans to be energy independent, producing all the energy it needs on its own.

Q. Gundersen’s plan to be energy independent in 2014 is one of the most unique among U.S. hospitals and health systems. Can you give some examples of how Gundersen is trying to reach this goal, and is it saving your organization money along the way?

A. The first example I always use — because everyone worries it’s going to take a huge amount of money — is conservation. Our first investment was in conservation. I recommend all CEOs to go for this. In the first year and a half, we spent $2 million. That’s a lot of money, but every year thereafter, we’ve saved $1.2 million in energy expenditures related to that activity. Right now, I don’t know anything in the organization that can get that rate of return.

...

Another example is the landfill project. This landfill was filling up outside town one mile from our northern campus. The county laid down a pipe, and now it brings methane to us. We put an engine there that generates electricity and powers the whole campus. There are 1,200 staff [members] at this north campus, and it is completely heated, powered and cooled by methane that three years ago was just being burned into the atmosphere. It also nets the county more than $100,000 per year in payment for their methane. But we still save $400,000 a year on reduced energy costs. We’ve saving money, the county is getting revenue and methane that was previously wasted is heating, powering and cooling a whole campus. It’s hard to say that’s not a good plan.