CONLEY COMMENTARY (WSAU) – Today ends an unusual spring election season in Wisconsin.
There’s a candidate on the ballot for State Superintendent of Public Instruction who actually dumbed down our state’s standardized tests. I’m amazed that Jill Underly is even a viable candidate. She’s been our state’s top education official at a time when state spending on schools has reached record levels, with nothing to show for it. Under her watch, Milwaukee schools continue to be failure factories. She can’t even cajole the most top-heavy with administration to file their paperwork for state and federal aid on time. Underly must go. Brittany Kinzer is not a conservative, per se, but at least she stands for achievement standards for our schools. She’s the obvious choice.
The constitutional amendment that’s on the ballot is such a no-brainer that it won’t drive people to the polls. Of course voters should have to identify themselves before casting a ballot. This is already the law in Wisconsin. It needs to be a constitutional amendment to put the issue beyond the reach of our crazy-liberal state Supreme Court. We should at least make voting as secure as getting a library card.
The state Supreme Court race figures to be very close. Democrats have been fundraising that a liberal majority court could re-draw Wisconsin’s congressional maps and change the balance of power in Washington. That’s what will happen if Susan Crawford wins. Actually, redistricting was an under-used argument by conservatives in this race. Wisconsin’s constitution clearly states that the legislature, not the courts, not the governor, draw Wisconsin’s political boundaries. And all the constitution says is that the districts shall be contiguous, and shall have the same numbers of people in them. Nowhere does the constitution say that the political make-up of a district should even be considered; those questions belong to state politicians. Yet the liberal court gave the Governor standing, and brought in their own experts to look at how many elephants and donkeys were in each district. The conservative position – the right position – is to look at what the constitution says and follow it. Brad Schimel is the constitutionalist for the court. Crawford sees no limits on what a court that can act as a super-legislature. They’ll keep hearing cases until they get the result they’re looking for. If you think that law shouldn’t be a moving target, Brad Schimel must be your choice.
Chris Conley
Comments