When we last left our can't shoot straight Wisconsin republicans, they had passed redistricting legislation without public comment, or, it was rumored, without even their own comment. They paid the illustrious (not) law firm of Michael Best to do the redistricting for them, with the idea that they could claim that all of the deliberations were protected by "attorney-client privilege". They claimed, with a straight face, that the maps were not drawn with the intent putting an electoral stranglehold on the state.
Well, a federal court has had none of this. The soon-to-be-legendary Giles Goat Boy published a diary outlining how the republicans and their attorneys got slapped down hard. The question was - what were the republicans hiding? What was so bad that they and their attorneys risked sanctions from the federal judiciary?
Now we know. They required their own legislators to sign secrecy oaths, promising not to discuss what they knew about the process with others or with the public.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has the story. Yes, the RW MJS.
Lawmakers were made to pledge secrecy over redistricting
Public comments were to be ignored, GOP memo shows
ohhh, gotta love that headline!
By Patrick Marley, Daniel Bice and Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel
Feb. 6, 2012 9:56 p.m.
Madison - legislative leaders secretly developed new election maps last year to strengthen their majority, Republican lawmakers were told to ignore public comments and instead focus on what was said in private strategy sessions, according to a GOP memo that became public Monday.
Other newly released documents also show almost all Republican lawmakers signed legal agreements promising not to discuss the new maps while they were being developed.
GOP lawmakers fought releasing these new documents and testifying about the maps in a pending court case but relented after a panel of three federal judges based in Milwaukee last month found they had filed frivolous motions in trying to shield the information from the public.
Yeah, now we know why the fought the release... How do you enforce an agreement of this sort? I agree that I'm not going to discuss the state's business with the public?
Included in the documents released Monday was a set of talking points that stressed that those who discussed the maps could eventually be called as a witness in a court case.
"Public comments on this map may be different than what you hear in this room. Ignore the public comments," the talking points also say.
Uh-huh. Don't mind what we tell the public. They're a bunch of rubes. We have to lie to them, you understand (wink-wink).
All the agreements were also signed by Eric McLeod of Michael Best & Friedrich, one of several attorneys who advised lawmakers on the maps. Legislative leaders have committed $400,000 in taxpayer money to pay Michael Best and the Troupis Law Office for their work on the maps.
Eric McLeod? Where have I heard that name before?
McLeod has drawn attention in recent months for providing legal services to state Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman under an arrangement in which Gableman did not have to pay.
Oh, yeah.
That Eric McLeod.
Electronic records say the talking points were created by "afoltz," an apparent reference to Adam Foltz, a legislative aide to Jeff Fitzgerald who helped draft the maps. It was created June 20 and last saved July 7 - the weeks just before the new maps were introduced as legislation.
In a deposition Wednesday, Foltz said he probably helped write the talking points but did not specifically remember doing so.
He said he couldn't remember why the document was created or to whom it was given. When asked what was meant by the suggestion in the document to "ignore the public comments," Foltz said he believed it referred to the public at large, rather than comments leaders made to the public.
"I would assume the general public. I honestly don't know exactly what it's referring to there," Foltz said.
Really, yur honor. I don't remember a thing...
The new batch of records also includes memos from Foltz to Republican lawmakers telling them how GOP candidates performed in their districts under the new and old maps. In a deposition in December, Foltz testified the new maps were not meant to increase the GOP majority in the Legislature.
Oops! Can you say p-e-r-j-u-r-y?
There's more - read the article - a sad statement on our state. A state which used to pride itself on bipartisanship, on open and transparent government. Now run by a bunch of minor criminals who appear to be bit players in Brecht's The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui.
The question before the federal court is - is this enough evidence to overturn the republican's redistricting map?
Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 10:07 PM PT: It's midnight here, and I've been up too late. I'll check in again in the am!
