The investigation into Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is led by a Republican special prosecutor, was unanimously approved by Wisconsin's nonpartisan Government Accountability Board, and includes the participation of elected county District Attorneys from both political parties. But according to an outlet bankrolled by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the motivation for the "John Doe" probe can be traced back to a "weeping" teacher's union member married to Milwaukee County's District Attorney, John Chisholm.

...

Yet the "bombshell" story fell apart on September 12, when the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Dan Bice broke the news that the unnamed source described as a "former staff prosecutor" was actually a former unpaid intern who previously made death threats to the prosecutor and his family. Bice confirmed that the source for the Chamber story is Michael Lutz, a former Milwaukee police officer who obtained his law license less than four years ago. Although the Chamber publication described Lutz as a "former staff prosecutor" and "longtime Chisholm subordinate," the truth is that Lutz worked, without pay, for Chisholm's office for only five-and-a-half months in 2011 filling out grant applications, but never handled any cases.

...

Even if the source for the Chamber story was more credible or had closer ties to Chisholm's office, the allegations do not stand up to scrutiny. A "weeping wife" doesn't explain why the non-partisan GAB -- a panel of retired judges appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature -- voted unanimously to approve the probe, or why Republican prosecutors from across the state found that the investigation had legal and factual merit.

The timeline is also questionable. According to the Chamber report, the "unnamed source" claims that an investigation that started in 2009 was motivated by anger over Walker's anti-union legislation -- which was introduced in 2011. The lengthy article jumps forward and back in time, at one point using the term "meanwhile" to refer to events that happened several months in the future. The claim that Chisholm was motivated by partisanship is also questionable, since the career prosecutor has consistently pursued charges against both Democratic and Republican public officials who violate campaign finance or ethics laws.

Governor Walker has failed us. From our air and water quality to clean energy jobs and all points in between, he’s left no stone unturned in desecrating the things that make Wisconsin a great place to live, work, and play. During his first term, one thing has been made perfectly clear: in Governor Walker’s Wisconsin, big polluters are rewarded – and the rest of us are left to pay the price. The Walker Conservation Failure Files is your guide to understanding how Governor Walker has failed us – our health, our economy, and our way of life. Before you cast your vote, get the facts and share with fellow conservation voters.

Walker Failure File #1: The Dirty Truth About Our Clean Jobs
Governor Walker waged an attack on the renewable energy industry that imperiled up to $1.2 billion in renewable energy investments and more than 1,100 jobs by imposing the greatest restrictions to wind turbines in the country.

Walker Failure File #2: Walker Blew it on Wind
One of Governor Walker’s first legislative goals was to throw wind farm development out the window by imposing extreme restrictions that would have suffocated Wisconsin’s clean energy future.

Walker Failure File #3: Trashing Recycling
Governor Walker snuck a provision into his budget eliminating state recycling requirements and all funding for municipality and county-run recycling programs.

China 1945-46

Korea 1950-53

China 1950-53

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-60

Guatemala 1960

Belgian Congo 1964

Guatemala 1964

Dominican Republic 1965-66

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodia 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Lebanon 1982-84

Grenada 1983-84

Libya 1986

El Salvador 1981-92

Nicaragua 1981-90

Iran 1987-88

Libya 1989

Panama 1989-90

Iraq 1991

Kuwait 1991

Somalia 1992-94

Bosnia 1995

Iran 1998

Sudan 1998

Afghanistan 1998

Yugoslavia – Serbia 1999

Afghanistan 2001

Libya 2011

In 2008, under the best possible conditions for a Democrat, Barack Obama lost Georgia by just over 200,000 votes, or 5.2 percent of Georgians who voted. Four years later he lost again by just over 300,000 votes, or 7.8 percent of Georgians who voted. By any measure the state is a reach for Democrats. And yet, the party is optimistic, both now—Michelle Nunn and Jason Carter, its Senate and gubernatorial candidates, respectively, are running close races—and for the future.

The “why” is easy to answer: Georgia has roughly 700,000 unregistered black voters. If Democrats could cut that number by less than a third—and bring nearly 200,000 likely Democrats to the polls—they would turn a red state purple, and land a major blow to the national Republican Party. Or, as Michelle Obama said during a campaign rally on Monday, “If just 50 Democratic voters per precinct who didn’t vote in 2010 get out and vote this November—just 50 per precinct—then Michelle Nunn and Jason Carter will win.” Given 2,727 precincts in Georgia, that’s just 136,350 new voters.

Enter the New Georgia Project. Led by Stacey Abrams, Democratic leader in the state House of Representatives, the project is meant to do just that—register hundreds of thousands of blacks and other minorities. Their goal, says Abrams, is to “directly or indirectly collect 120,000 voter registration applications.” That could be enough to push Democrats over the top. And it makes the project one of the largest voter registration drives in recent Georgia history.

So far, it’s been a success. “In addition to the 85,000 we have collected as an organization directly,” says Abrams, “we have also supported the efforts of 12 organizations around the state. We know there are groups doing registration in the Latino community, in the Asian community, and in the youth community, and we wanted to support their efforts as well.” These groups, she says, have collected 20,000 to 25,000 applications, putting the New Georgia Project in striking distance of its goal two months before Election Day.

Voters must show a photo ID to receive a ballot at the November General Election. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago has stayed the injunction against the voter photo ID provisions of 2011 Wisconsin Act 23. Information about how to obtain Voter ID has changed. This page will be updated as soon as the ramifications of this ruling have been been clarified. Please check back soon!

The League of Women Voters of Dane County announces a project to assist eligible voters in obtaining the required ID to vote, and a fund-raising drive to assist area voters to obtain the documentation necessary to get a Department of Transportation (DOT) ID for voting purposes. Citizens seeking assistance can call our office and leave a message requesting help. Tax-deductible contributions to help fund this project may be mailed to LWVDC, 2712 Marshall Court, Suite 2, Madison, WI 53705, or make a contribution now through PayPal using the Donate button below.

Donate here.

Although the Wisconsin DOT provides a free photo ID card to residents who request it for voting purposes, the documentation required to prove name, date of birth, citizenship, identity, and Wisconsin residence are not necessarily free. A certified birth certificate costs $9 to $30, depending on the state of birth, and may take weeks or months to obtain. Application requirements vary by state, but can be difficult. Thirty-five states request a copy of a government ID to send a birth certificate. Each state has different requirements for ID for people who do not have a government-issued photo ID. In addition, for anyone whose current name does not match their birth certificate, a marriage license or other document verifying the name change is also required. This has the effect of making ID requirements more challenging for women.

The Madison City Clerk’s office found that 10% of voters in the July 2011 special election did not have appropriate ID. This is consistent with the report of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School entitled Voting Law Changes in 2012, which estimates that 11% of Wisconsin voters lack acceptable photo ID. The Brennan Center report provides additional breakdown, noting that 23% of people over the age of 65 do not have photo ID acceptable for voting, and that the burdens of addressing voter ID requirements fall disproportionately on minority and low-income voters. There has been considerable confusion in Wisconsin about required documentation. People without computer access may not know how to get a birth certificate from a distant state. Transportation challenges and the cost of identity documents may make the process overwhelming.

The Speech on Diplomacy That Obama Should Have Given Last Night
Not taking military action isn’t the same thing as doing nothing.


Too often in the United States—most especially since 9/11—we equate “doing something” with “doing something military.” George W. Bush gave a traumatized, near-paralyzed US public two options: we either go to war, or we let ‘em get away with it. Faced with that choice, it was hardly surprising that 88 percent or so of people in this country chose war. But the reality is that when there are no military solutions—which is most of the time, for those who care to notice, including on September 12, 2001—the alternative is not nothing, but active non-military engagement. Diplomacy becomes even more important. President Obama has said it over and over again: there is no US military solution in Iraq or Syria. He’s right. And yet military actions—in coalitions, with local partners, counter-terrorism but not counter-insurgency—were pretty much all we heard in his speech last night.

Obama’s four-part strategy to “degrade and destroy” ISIS (which he persists in calling ISIL, referencing the Levant, the old French colonial term for Greater Syria or al-Shams) tilts strongly towards the military. First, airstrikes, in Syria as well as Iraq. Second, military support to forces fighting ISIS on the ground, including support to the “moderate” Syrian opposition who challenge ISIS. Third, counter-terrorism strategies to “cut off its funding, improve our intelligence, strengthen our defenses, counter its warped ideology and stem the flow of foreign fighters.” And fourth, the only one not solely or primarily military, humanitarian assistance. What’s missing is a real focus, a real explanation to people in this country and to people and governments in the Middle East and around the world, on just what a political solution to the ISIS crisis would really require and what kind of diplomacy will be needed to get there.

...

Second, instead of a Coalition of the Killing, President Obama should have announced a new broad coalition with a political and diplomatic, not military, mandate. It should aim to use diplomatic power and financial pressures, not military strikes, to undermine ISIS power. Such a coalition would be far broader and far less fragile than a military alliance. All the regional governments have their own limitations on military action. Turkey knows that supporting, let alone joining, US-led airstrikes or other attacks on ISIS in Iraq or Syria could threaten the lives of its forty-nine diplomats and their families now held by ISIS. US ally Saudi Arabia will have to be pushed hard to stop arming and financing ISIS and other extremist fighters, but its dependence on US arms and military protection gives Washington plenty of leverage if it chose to use it. Turkey could be pushed to stop allowing ISIS and other fighters to cross into Syria from Turkish territory. US allies Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others need to be pushed to stop financing and arming everyone and anyone in Syria who says they’re against Assad. (Those include the Al Qaeda franchise al-Nusra Front as well as the so-called “moderate” opposition fighters of the Free Syrian Army, who themselves beheaded six ISIS prisoners captured in August.)

...

Finally, an arms embargo on all sides should be on the long-term agenda. This obviously isn’t something that will happen right away. But discussion about why it’s necessary could begin tomorrow. The United States has no leverage and no legitimacy in pressing Russia and Iran to end their support for the Assad regime in Damascus as long as Washington and its regional allies continue to arm and train the wide range of anti-Assad rebels. Qatar, Saudi Arabia and others, especially among the gulf states, have no reason to stop arming their various chosen factions as long as the United States ignores its own domestic requirements under the Leahy Law and the Arms Export Control Act to stop arms sales to known human rights violators in foreign militaries. A viable arms embargo will be on all sides or none. And once it’s on the agenda, it becomes a step towards another crucial goal, too often dismissed as impossible: a weapons of mass destruction–free Middle East, with no exceptions. Such a move would begin the process of inspecting and ultimately eliminating Israel’s powerful but unacknowledged nuclear arsenal, would confirm the non-military use of Iran’s nuclear power program and would end the propensity for WMD production in too many countries in the region. And it would be a fitting coda to a hard-fought and likely years-long diplomatic process.