Issue 5

Written By Perry Govier

Quote to Note

“The issue facing our nation isn’t how old we are; it’s how old are our ideas. Hate, anger, revenge, retribution are the oldest of ideas. But you can’t lead America with ancient ideas that only take us back. To lead America, the land of possibilities, you need a vision for the future and what can and should be done.

President Biden, State of the Union address, March 7, 2024

Plan for the April 2 Election 

League of Women Voters

  • Vote No on Constitutional Amendments

  • Sawyer County Board Members Up for Election

  • Make a Plan to Vote



The April 2 election is fast approaching, and there are two significant matters for you to consider. One involves two proposed state Constitutional Amendments (questions) that will appear on the ballot. The second involves the Sawyer County Board.

Vote No on Constitutional Amendments

There will be two proposed state constitutional amendments (questions) on the April 2 ballot:

 ❌Question 1: “Use of private funds in election administration. Shall section 7 (1) of article III of the constitution be created to provide that private donations and grants may not be applied for, accepted, expended, or used in connection with the conduct of any primary, election, or referendum?"

 ❌Question 2: “Election officials. Shall section 7 (2) of article III of the constitution be created to provide that only election officials designated by law may perform tasks in the conduct of primaries, elections, and referendums?"

The League of Women Voters (LWV) and Sawyer County LCO Democrats urge you to vote “no” on these amendments. Other groups that oppose the amendments include the Wisconsin Justice Institute and Wisconsin Conservation Voters.

Important Notes

Your vote on these questions is binding. If approved, these provisions would be added to the state constitution. Your vote is not simply expressing a preference.

The overall intent of these amendments is to make it harder to vote. They are an attempt to work around the better process of the governor working with the Legislature to ensure adequate support for running elections.

Background

These amendments stem from a $10.6 million grant from the non-profit Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) to election offices throughout the state in 2020 due to the added costs of administering an election during a pandemic. CTCL was largely funded by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, leading to the nickname “Zuckerbucks” for the funding.

More than 200 communities in Wisconsin received shares of the grant, with $8.8 million going to Milwaukee, Racine, Green Bay, Madison, and Kenosha—the state’s largest cities. Many smaller communities also received grants, including inRepublican areas like Waukesha County. Waukesha received $42,000, which it used to help cover increased mailing costs, tables, rolling partitions and equipment.

Conservatives launched legal challenges over the grants, and courts ruled multiple times that there was nothing in state law that prohibited clerks from taking the money. Bipartisan members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission also upheld the grants.

Per the process for amending the state constitution, the Wisconsin Legislature passed the amendments in two separate sessions, which moved them to this spring’s ballot. All Democrats in the Wisconsin Legislature opposed the amendments. Note that the governor was not involved in the process.

Here’s what the League of Women Voters says about these proposed amendments.

Question 1: Use of private funds in election administration

·        Elections need to be fully funded. This amendment reduces the options for municipal governments looking for outside sources of funding for elections without providing alternative resources. This change will shift the burden even further onto taxpayers.

·        This change will have a negative impact on the voter experience and could lead to long lines and wait times at polling places, consolidated polling places, longer waits for election night results, and more due to lack of funding.

·        This change does not belong in our constitution. If the Legislature wants to make this change, lawmakers should work with the governor to do so in a way that ensures our elections are fully funded.

·        Vote No on question 1 to ensure our clerks have the support and money they need to keep our elections running smoothly and securely.

Question 2: Election officials

·        Elections are a lot of work. Clerks rely on a whole host of outside experts, volunteers, and community members to make sure our elections are run smoothly and the results are accurate.

·        Voter education organizations, like LWV, play a critical role in informing the public about their right to vote. This proposed change to our state constitution ties the hands of our election officials from getting the outside support they need for our elections to function. 

·        This change does not belong in our constitution. If the Legislature wants to make this change, lawmakers should work with the governor to do so in a way that ensures our clerks are able to get the support they need to run our elections.

Vote No to question 2 to ensure our clerks have the support they need to run our elections and voters have the support they need to make informed decisions for our state.

For More Information

League of Women Voters Toolkit, including messaging

Wisconsin’s April 2 referendum questions and the ‘Zuckerbucks’ debate, explained—Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

‘The money needed to come from somewhere’: How Madison spent its ‘Zuckerbucks’—WKOW TV

Sawyer County Board Members Up for Election

The second significant matter on the April ballot is the election of Sawyer County Board commissioners.

The Democratic Party of Sawyer County and Lac Courte Oreilles Reservation supports the following candidates in contested races as most aligned with progressive values: Kay Wilson, District 2; Tweed Shuman, District 3; and Christopher Rusk, District 11. Sawyer County LCO Democrats also support unopposed candidate Brian Bisonette, District 9, as most aligned with progressive values.

For More Information

Full list of Sawyer County board candidates: 2024-Spring-Election---Sawyer-County-Board-Candidates (sawyercountygov.org)

Make a Plan to Vote

 ·       Know where to vote.

·        Bring proper identification.

·        Make sure you are registered to vote.

Get more information at myvote.wi.gov/en-us

If you’re registered, you may also search your voter record at My Voter Info on the above site.

Back to top

‘A New Day in Wisconsin’

Sources: Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition
WisDems Chair Ben Wikler’s weekly newsletter, March 1, 2024
Wisconsin State Legislature website

Gov. Evers holds up newly signed fair maps bill. AP Photo

On Monday, February 19, 2024, with pro-democracy leaders, fair maps activists and state legislators looking on, Gov. Tony Evers signed fair maps—the maps he submitted to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in December 2023—into law.  

These maps will be in place for the 2024 elections and give Wisconsin voters a real shot at electing an accountable, representative, and balanced legislature for the first time since the extreme partisan gerrymander was imposed in 2011.

As the Governor stated at the press conference before the signing, "Folks, it's a new day in Wisconsin...few have been as consequential as this one."

Here’s WisDems Party Chair Ben Wikler’s take on the impact of the new maps on northern Wisconsin:

Under the 2022 ultra-gerrymandered maps, the northernmost Democratic state legislator in Wisconsin is Jodi Emerson, who represents the one non-GOP district in Eau Claire—a district drawn to soak up as many Democrats as possible and prevent competitive races in the surrounding area.

Now, the overwhelmingly Democratic voters on Wisconsin’s Northern edge will be able to elect a Democrat in the 73rd Assembly district; voters in the purple Western tip of the state in Northwest Wisconsin will have a shot at electing a Democrat in the 30th district; Democrats have a shot at three Assembly districts in Eau Claire—and the 31st state Senate seat!—and Wausau voters will finally have a clear shot at electing a Democrat in a district that is likely to be one of the most competitive in the whole state.

In other words, the Republican myth of a solid red Northern Wisconsin can now enter the dustbin of history.

In fact, there will now be competitive or blue districts in every corner of the state—North, South, East, West, and central Wisconsin.

Democrats live everywhere. Rural areas, suburbs, small towns, and cities. To think otherwise is to fall victim to Republican propaganda. The lack of representation was the result of the GOP rigging the maps.

Winning an Assembly majority won’t be easy, not by any stretch of the imagination. But if we win the most votes, it’s now possible. And multiple state Senate seats—as many as five or six—are within reach this cycle as well, putting us on the path to a majority in 2026.

In other words, here in 50-50 Wisconsin, the margin of victory may at last be within the margin of effort.

Our goal is to fill the ballot. To find candidates in every single legislative and Congressional district. Extraordinary folks are already stepping forward or making plans to do so.

 Impact on Sawyer County

The new maps have a significant impact on Sawyer County, which was previously in Assembly District 87 and Senate District 29.

Under the 2024 maps, Sawyer County is in Assembly District 74, which besides Sawyer County includes all of Iron and Washburn counties, and parts of Ashland, Douglas, Bayfield, and Burnett counties. Chanz Green, R-Grandview, represents Assembly District 74. Under the 2022 maps, Sawyer County was represented by Jim Edming, R-Glen Flora.

Under the 2024 maps, Sawyer County is in Senate District 25, represented by Romaine Quinn, R-Cameron. Under the 2022 maps, Sawyer County was represented by Cory Tomczyk, R-Mosinee.

Assembly races are on deck this year, meaning Democrats must field a candidate against the Republican candidate—Green if he chooses to run again and isn’t unseated by a Republican challenger in a primary. His term expires on Jan. 6, 2025. Quinn’s Senate term ends on Jan. 4, 2027.

For More Information

 ·        Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition

·        What do Wisconsin's new maps mean for the Legislature's balance of power? - WPR

·        Wisconsin's new legislative maps: Questions, answers on redistricting (jsonline.com)

·        Wisconsin Legislature: 2023 Wisconsin Act 94 NOTES: Scroll waaaaay down the page to District 74 for full breakdown of the geographic area of the new Assembly district. At the time of publication I (the newsletter editor) could not find a similar breakdown for new state Senate districts—not even on the Wisconsin Legislature page. I’ll keep looking.

·        Wisconsin Legislative District Viewer Enter your address to compare your 2022 legislators to 2024 legislators. 

Back to top

A Deeper Dive on the Impact of Redistricting 

‘The prime benefit of the new maps isn’t that they will help Democrats, it is that they will help democracy.’

By Kerry Kittel, New Richmond, Wis.
Printed in the Hudson Star Observer

Many of the people and news outlets who celebrated the return of fair legislative maps in Wisconsin missed the big picture. Will the new fair maps lead to more Democrats winning legislative seats? Of course they will. [But] the prime benefit of the new maps isn’t that they will help Democrats, it is that they will help democracy.

Fair maps will increase the number of quality candidates willing to run for legislative seats in both parties. More Democrats will run because many formerly Republican districts are now toss-ups, and others will have a 3-5 percent Republican advantage rather than a 10 percent advantage. Moderate Republican candidates will increase because winning elections will depend on listening to the voters, not far-right party leaders.

Issues such as sensible gun reform, including background checks, Medicaid expansion, decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana, preserving access to abortion in some or most cases, access to contraception, and funding public schools all have strong public support. Republicans can either give them serious consideration or pay the price. 

Republicans have already demonstrated that running radical candidates for statewide offices is a losing strategy. Governor Evers defeated Scott Walker in 2018 and beat radical conservative Tim Michels by a larger margin in 2022. Jill Karofsky and Janet Protasiewicz each defeated ultra-conservative Dan Kelly by 11 percent. Wisconsin Republicans will eventually realize that statewide elections can’t be won that way.

One can hope that huge sums or dark money supporting extremist candidates will be reduced. Perhaps we all will be spared the worst of the negative ads designed to suppress the vote. In the new fair maps Wisconsin, voter participation should also increase.

Wisconsin residents should celebrate the return of a more voter-centered, issue-oriented democracy. Our rich tradition of considering all good public policy ideas, many of them progressive, ended with the Republican gerrymandering in 2010. With that obstacle removed, we can once again follow Wisconsin’s state motto and move forward.

Back to top

Ten Topics and Myriad Questions
for Tom Tiffany
Part 5: Women’s Reproductive Rights

By Jim Bootz, Vice Chair, Sawyer County LCO Democrats

What does Tom Tiffany think about women's reproductive rights?

We have answers: Tiffany is supported by Wisconsin Right to Life and has been endorsed by National Right to Life, which wants to ban abortions without exception for rape or incest. In fact, he says he could see Congress creating a nationwide ban, "where you do not get to abort a baby after 15 weeks."

I have to question Tiffany's choice of language. Does he believe that the terms "fetus" and "baby" are interchangeable? Is a three-month-old baby also called a fetus? Likewise, he has accused pro-choice lawmakers of seeking to make "partial birth abortion" legal. Could he find for us a licensed OB/GYN professional who has used that term, or who regards it as appropriate or even meaningful in their work? If not, then where did he get the idea that this nonsensical, non-existent thing exists? Is he really advocating a nationwide ban on something that doesn't exist and doesn't even make sense?

I haven't read all of his campaign literature, so I'd have to ask Tom if he has ever run for office before on a platform that advocated taking rights away from every woman in America. Feeling as passionately about it as he seems to now, why would he not share that with the voting public? Has he looked at polling data to see how popular the idea of canceling women's reproductive rights might be, particularly in his own congressional district? Would that make a difference to him if he did? Tiffany has also voted against the Right to Contraception Act, which would guarantee the right to birth control in federal law. I don't think he wants to know how unpopular that vote might be.

I feel the need to ask Tiffany these many questions, specifically because I get a very clear impression that he hasn't asked them of himself. I'd like to know that, at least once, he had to consider such questions on this matter of such dire importance. Does the life of a fetus have greater value than that of the mother carrying it? He owes his constituents an answer to that one. Is there justification for allowing a woman to die by refusing her life-saving medical treatment, or in effect forcing a woman to exchange her own life for that of the fetus she is carrying? If so, he should provide his justification and explain where it comes from.

What drives Tiffany's desire to ban abortion in every instance everywhere in America without knowing anything about the individual circumstances? Does he believe that it doesn't matter what the circumstances are? Does he believe that women see abortion as just another form of birth control? Does he believe that abortion is something that women make casual decisions about for themselves, and that they don't take childbirth as seriously as he does? Does he believe that he is superior to them and must intervene in their decision-making? Just where does one get the idea that a woman's healthcare decisions can be vetoed, essentially, by anyone? And, why is it not also the case with any healthcare decision made by a man?

Is there any factual or logical justification at all for his intention to intervene? Or is he inserting his personal religious beliefs into his legislative role? And, if that is the case, does he find the First Amendment to the Constitution to be difficult to comprehend? Has he read something in it that he feels contradicts the general sense that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?"

And finally, If it is the case, if Tom were to concede that he's imposing a narrow set of religious beliefs on us that a clear majority of Americans disagrees with, then what are those beliefs, what specific religion and sect are they from, and is there scripture that he could cite for us that would support his position?

It's not that any of that matters with regard to it being constitutional. Church has no business running State. And vice versa. But, at the very least, when someone tells us that something is against their religion, they can begin to explain—and must—by telling us exactly what religion that is, and then be prepared to take a lot of questions.

Back to top

Our Values
U.S. History Lessons from the Philippine Islands

Editor’s Note: This is where we, members of the Sawyer County LCO Democrats and guests, express our own values and their connection to the party.

By Jim Bootz, Vice Chair, Sawyer County LCO Democrats

My father once told me that I was being philosophical. I had long forgotten what that conversation had been about until it came to me again recently. It was in the early 80s and now I remember what prompted it. I had said to him, "You know, sometimes I think we create our own enemies." And that was his response. We had been talking about global politics and, in particular, the difficulties the US was having with Iran and in Central America. My point was that we had been propping up some nasty dictators around the world for a long time and it had finally come back to bite us. Not to mention what it had done to the people living under them.

So, I didn't take offense at being called philosophical, whether or not one was intended. I saw it as the recognition that we came at it from different perspectives. I respected his. He'd had a front row seat to geopolitics gone bad when he served at the end of World War II, conducting interviews and gathering intelligence from members of the German high command.

And my perspective was formed largely by the time that I'd spent overseas with the Navy and primarily in the Philippines. I served on an aircraft carrier that deployed to the western Pacific and was homeported at the Subic Bay Naval Base for roughly four months during that time. It's certainly not enough time to have made me an expert on the history or politics of that nation, but I learned quite a few things while there.

To begin with, I learned a part of U.S. history that was never mentioned in any of the history classes that I'd attended. In primary school, the Spanish-American War was never given nearly as much attention as the Revolutionary, Civil, and World Wars. And the part of it that took place in the Philippines was simply treated as that nation's liberation, by the U.S., from centuries of Spanish control. Although the bloody conflict between U.S. troops and Filipino guerrillas over the four years that followed was never brought up.

No Good Reason to Obscure Our Own History

It seems that the two nations had differed on the meaning of that word "liberation." I first learned about it from friends I'd made there. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of our history texts omitting events that were less than exemplary of a nation like ours, which claims to be a champion of democracy. In fact, many countries do the same thing. Japan's history texts didn't include their record of abuses throughout the nations they occupied in World War II until the formerly occupied nations shamed them into it. I can't think of a good reason for a country to obscure its own history from the view of its people. How can you develop good foresight with a filtered view of the past? And who chooses the filters?

When I arrived there just after Christmas in 1977, the Philippines was under martial law, imposed by then President Ferdinand Marcos, and it had been for five years. A month earlier, Marcos' political opponent, a former senator named Benigno Aquino, had been convicted on false charges and sentenced by a military court to death by firing squad, though Marcos later commuted his sentence. I'd already read a bit with regard to the Philippines' current political climate while en route from San Diego, beginning with an article from a Time magazine that had been laying around the shop, and then going up to the ship's library for a deeper dive.

It became obvious that much of the world regarded the Marcos regime as thoroughly corrupt. Nepotism and cronyism were well-known to abound there. Friends and relatives were given government positions, some created just for them, as well as monopolies on Philippine exports. It was said that the Marcos family treated the Philippine Treasury as their personal slush fund. And it was readily apparent to anyone with eyes how the rest of the country had fared. Poverty was widespread.

I asked those Filipino friends about this broad perception of corruption, not sure whether I should be asking them if they thought it was true or if they were even aware of what the rest of the world saw it for. It wasn't any secret to them, but they spoke in carefully chosen words about anything having to do with the government. I felt rather helpless. The "Third World" had been an eye opener. I'd never encountered so many people with so few personal possessions, for one thing. And, from their perspective, it was puzzling how an American could earn near-poverty level wages and still have his very own car. And a new one, at that.

U.S. Propped Up Corrupt Regime

My near poverty was a temporary condition, largely induced by rank, or a lack of. Not so with theirs as long as the Marcos family ruled. And the Marcos family ruled as long as my country continued to prop them up. This was probably the point in my life at which I came to fully realize that the way I voted made a difference in the lives of people on the other side of the globe that I really cared about. And I also recognized that their vote didn't mean a damn thing.

I'd love to describe some of the many frauds perpetrated by Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos upon their people, but time doesn't permit. I'll just give you a telling example, as shown in a PBS documentary. I didn't think even Imelda Marcos would be so bold and so dishonest as to take a news crew on a tour of her brand new suburban-style housing development, only to have some pesky cameraman shoot some footage from the side of the homes when nobody else was looking. The "new homes" were literally facades attached to the front of corrugated steel quonset huts, an apt metaphor for Imelda and the whole regime.

Not Content with the Status Quo

My dad was right. I am philosophical. I'm not content with "Well, that's just the way things work." I'd rather occupy the realm of what can be done and what should be done. That is particularly so when the people being crushed under "the ways things work" are people I know or care about. I left the Philippines with two clear thoughts in mind.

First, I felt the need to better inform myself and others about what our foreign policy is doing to real people's lives, and the need to be more selective in that regard about the leaders we choose.

Second, I felt some relief in knowing that our country would never let anyone so conspicuously self-serving and corrupt assume our presidency. The kind of person whose primary focus was enriching himself and his family beyond any recognizable bounds and without any concern for what it would do to the rest of the country, who would lie and abuse power incessantly, doing anything to keep from being unseated. [I didn’t think someone like that] could gain traction without a stiff backlash from the American electorate. Certainly, between laws, journalism, and common sense, a person like that would not be able to occupy the White House. I thought. For some reason.

And now we have hindsight. And foresight. We should use it. By the way, if you're not familiar with the story, that political rival of Marcos, Benigno Aquino, was flown to the U.S. for life-saving medical treatment during his incarceration. He stayed longer than his recuperation required and had continued to be an open critic of Marcos with a much larger megaphone available to him, but he decided on his own to return to the Philippines. Before leaving, he explained to a journalist that he couldn't do enough to help his country and its people from so far away. When asked if he knew he'd likely be killed when he got there, he said "yes." The plane landed, soldiers boarded, and Aquino was shot dead before reaching the door.

Back to top

Our Values
Look for the Helpers

Editor’s Note: This is where we, members of the Sawyer County LCO Democrats and guests, express our own values and their connection to the party.

By Mary Vitcenda, Vice Chair, Sawyer County LCO Democrats

Fred Rogers often told this story about when he was a boy and would see scary things on the news: "My mother would say to me, 'Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.'”

Fred Rogers, long-time host of a children’s show on PBS; Photo: NPR

Fred Rogers, of course, was Mr. Rogers, the host of a beloved children’s show on PBS. I thought of his words recently as I compared the records and plans of President Biden and Donald Trump for governing (or not governing). I’m focusing on the federal level here, and I’m omitting detail in the fervent hope that you search out more information yourself from credible sources. That said, I urge you to look at the following issues, and others, through Mr. Rogers’ eyes before voting in national, state, and local elections.

The economy: Under President Biden’s leadership, Congressional Democrats have enacted policies that are creating jobs, increasing wages, and making needed investments in our economy. They have lifted the economy almost back to pre-pandemic levels. As the economy improves and the Fed makes sound decisions on interest rates, inflation should decrease. In fact, it’s already cooling. 

As for Trump and MAGA Republicans in Congress, they continue to promote the failed trickle-down tactic of tax cuts for large corporations and the wealthy. Trump also supports isolationist ideas that would raise prices and hurt consumers.

Access to affordable health care: President Biden and Congressional Democrats have lowered the cost of prescription drugs. His administration also has worked to reduce the number of Americans without health insurance by the millions, and it supports measures to protect women’s access to reproductive health care.

Conversely, Trump continues to say he would eliminate Obamacare. He claims to favor more access to abortion services than extreme states but continues to brag about appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade.

Immigration reform: President Biden and Democratic lawmakers recently worked with Republican lawmakers to craft a bipartisan bill that would provide resources to secure the southern border and restrict the flow of asylum seekers when necessary.

You’d think Republicans would support this bill, given some GOP lawmakers helped develop it. But Trump told Congressional Republicans to oppose the bill because he wants to keep whining about the border instead of solving problems.

Rule of law and voter protection: President Biden and Democrats support the rule of law, including the peaceful transfer of power between presidential elections. They also believe all eligible voters should have access to the ballot box. And they want the United States to stay in the alliance of democratic nations and uphold the principles our forebears fought for in World War II.

On the other hand, Trump shows a strange affinity to Vladimir Putin, who definitely is no friend of democracy. Trump also worked mightily to overturn the 2020 election by instigating the violent January 6th attack on the Capitol and by advancing a fake elector scheme and other tricks.

Which Candidate Mirrors Your Values?
I ask that you compare the approaches of these two candidates and decide which one most closely matches your values when you vote this year. And please think of Mr. Rogers’ advice to “Look for the helpers” as you cast your ballot.
Back to top

Local Dems Staff Table at LCO Round Dance

Sawyer County LCO Democrats staffed a table at the March 2 Round Dance at the Seven Winds Casino. Joan Cervenka, Louise Ladenthin, Tom Vitcenda, and Mary Vitcenda urged passersby to vote in upcoming elections. And they asked visitors to sign up for a raffle offering $50 gift certificates for the LCO Country Store.

Joan Cervenka later asked Opichee Day Bedeau, six-year-old son of tribal member Opie Day, to draw two winners’ names for the certificates. The winners, announced by Round Dance emcee Mike Sullivan were Art Mustache and Myra Whitrock.

Fans decorated with the Stars and Stripes proved the most popular giveaway at the table—especially among the kids! “Although state and national elections aren’t coming up until August and November, we were happy to get the names of our Democratic candidates in front of everyone at the Round Dance,” said Party Secretary Louise Ladenthin. Posters urged votes for Biden-Harris, Tammy Baldwin, and Kyle Kilbourn, candidate for the 7th District Congressional seat now held by Tom Tiffany.

From left, Sawyer County LCO Dems Louise Ladenthin, Joan Cervenka, and Tom Vitcenda staffed a table at the March 2 LCO Round Dance. Mary Vitcenda, who took these photos, also volunteered.

Opichee Day Bedeau, 6, and Joan Cervenka look on while Mike Sullivan, emcee at the Round Dance, announced a winner in the Sawyer County LCO Dems’ raffle at the event.

Back to top

President Biden Outlines Inspiring Vision in Fiery State of the Union Speech

“This was the unfiltered reality check moment that American politics needed. After months of hand wringing, journalists and the public alike got to see the Biden that those who work with him see every day: a president in full, fired up, laying out his vision of freedom, democracy, and prosperity for working people—and drawing a razor-sharp contrast with a Republican Party that wants to take freedoms away from women and hand budget-busting tax cuts to billionaires.”—Ben Wikler, Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair

President Biden delivers 2024 State of the Union speech. Photo/Washington Post

Perry Govier
Previous

Issue 6
Next

Issue 4