Update on Ieshuh Griffin's bid for Wisconsin Assembly

Daily Show senior political correspondent John Oliver has a hard hitting report (see below).  Previous coverage from the Gillette-Torvik blog available here, here, and here.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Slogan's Hero
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Scalia speaks at Marquette Law School

Justice Scalia went to Marquette to emphasize the importance of law teaching.  He did not, however, emphasize the importance of hair combing. 

Reached for comment, Scalia had this to say:  "Vaffanculo."

Purpose of candidate statement of purpose

Mr. Gillette raises some interesting points about the "NOT the 'whiteman's bitch'" case.

Why are independents allowed to include a "statement of purpose" but not Republicans or Democrats?  I think this makes sense.  Everyone knows what a Republican is, and everyone knows what a Democrat is--by running under the banner of one of these parties, a candidate is effectively adopting a well-known statement of purpose.  But when someone is running as neither a Republican or Democrat, a voter is likely to ask, "what's this all about?"  So I think it makes sense to give the independent candidate an opportunity to describe, succinctly, what she's all about.  The alternative, I think, would be to eliminate any party identifications from the ballots altogether.  I think this is why you are unlikely to see a First Amendment challenge by the major parties:  this is kind of a gift to the independent candidates, to prevent them from complaining too much about the big advantage that Ds and Rs get merely by getting to put the D or R next to their name on the ballot.  [Contrast this to judicial elections, in Minnesota at least, where one of the candidate gets to put "incumbent" next to his or her name, and other candidates get only their name on the ballot.]

I think we could have a lot of fun trying to come up with 5-word "statements of purpose" to describe the Republican and Democratic parties.  I'll start, for the Republicans:  "PROUD to be a whiteman."

I am not dictating a legal theory.

Actually, I thought there were two interesting things about the story. Make that two additional interesting things about the story. As a former resident of Milwaukee, I was struck by the fact that, unlike the major parties, "independents are allowed a five-word statement of purpose on the ballot to explain to voters what their candidacy is about." I lived in Milwaukee for 16 years after I became legal voting age and I cannot remember ever seeing a statement of purpose from a candidate on a ballot. So, I assume the statute or rule allowing the statement is relatively new or I have poor powers of observation. If the former, I wonder how the rule got passed. One would think that support of at least some major party members was needed and that they would want a statement of purpose by their names as well.

The other thing I thought was interesting was that, according to the article, the decision to not allow Ms. Griffin to use her preferred statement of purpose was made by a single staff member of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board. Ms. Griffin appealed that decision to the actual board. The board voted 3-2 in favor of Ms. Griffin. However, by state law, the board can only act, in this case overturn its staff member's decision, if 4 of the members agree. Initially, I thought why make a board that needs a super majority to act? But as the second link makes clear, the board has 6 members so 4 is a majority if all vote. In Ms. Griffin's case, the question becomes why give a board member who doesn't show up a veto power over the board? Shouldn't it be a majority of voting board members? Isn't this especially true when all the board is doing is supervising its staff?

In any event, I hope we haven't heard the last of this case. Ms. Griffin has an interesting speech issue. As one of the board members noted, her position statement, while offensive, is not obscene or pornographic. One also wonders if the rule or statute allowing the position statement for independent candidates but not major party ones could stand a constitutional challenge. It certainly discriminates based on the identify of the speaker. Normally, First Amendment jurisprudence doesn't allow that.

Setback for "NOT the 'whiteman's bitch'" party

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports that Ieshuh Griffin has failed, for the moment, in her effort to sue over her failure to get on the ballot for Wisconsin state Assembly under the banner of the "NOT the 'whiteman's bitch'" party.  She brought her action as a habeas corpus petition, but she is not in custody.  So the judge dismissed the case, with leave to file under a proper theory.  Griffin's reaction:

He [the judge] cannot dictate my legal theory. I think this is a prejudicial delay . . . This constitutes a judicial disability, and he has to recuse himself. He's infringing on my access to the court.