Wisconsin’s spring election was yesterday, and there were few surprises in the races that involved the City of Whitewater.
Common Council. In Whitewater’s municipal election, both of the unopposed incumbents on the ballot were returned to office. The total votes for the at-large seat (Stewart) were in between the numbers for the winning and defeated candidates in last year’s contested at-large race; that’s probably about what one would expect for an uncontested seat. The total votes for the incumbent on the ballot for a district seat (Binnie) were higher than the typical number sufficient to win a district.
We had one council race with no one on the ballot. The incumbent (Taylor), running as a write-in, defeated two other write-in candidates.
County Boards. Two incumbents seeking re-election to their respective county boards (Grant, Torres) were returned to office, and one incumbent seeing a second term as a write-in (Bromley) was defeated.
Overall, though, a good day to be an incumbent, as not one of the races that I’ve mentioned had two candidates on the ballot.
Circuit Court. Walworth County had a contested race for circuit judge, the field of four candidates having been narrowed to two for the spring election. I wrote about the four candidates before the primary. See, The Walworth County Judicial Candidates’ Positions, and Understanding. David Reddy and Scott Letteney were the two primary candidates who showed, I thought, the best understanding of a judge’s role, and Reddy went on to win the general election last night, over David Danz.
More than a Referendum. Nearby, in the Town of Whitewater, there was a referendum on beer sales in the town. The referendum was narrowly defeated. There’s a bigger story out of the town than the defeat of the referendum. Following an earlier challenge from John Swaffer, this year Charles Hatchett challenged provisions of Wisconsin law requiring him to register and account for postcards sent in opposition to the referendum. Swaffer’s challenge was successful on appeal; Hatchett successfully won an injunction against enforcement of the Wisconsin campaign restrictions. For more on the cases, see Town of Whitewater Resident Challenges Wisconsin Campaign Finance Laws, Wins Federal Injunction.
Quick notes: (1) I live in the City of Whitewater, not the nearby Town of Whitewater, (2) I’m not opposed to beer sales, generally, but (3) I am convinced that Swaffer and Hatchett have done something good for all Wisconsin residents by challenging a law that makes dissent more difficult.
Years ago, in the City of Whitewater, I recall a school board member was cited in violation, I think, of the same law that Swaffer and Hatchett challenged. I wasn’t writing at the time, but I remember thinking, “They cited someone for a few flyers? That’s official use of resources? What an amazing, foolish, arrogant defense of the status quo…” I’m not sure how a legal challenge would have fared at that time, but Swaffer’s challenge came along at the right time.
It doesn’t take all that much to get referendum question on a ballot, but it’s often hard to challenge it through flyers or brochures if insiders are backing the referendum effort. (I’m not speaking specifically about the latest referendum, but generally.)
When someone wants to protest, to explain a position in opposition to a ballot question, suddenly he risks being asked to defend his very right to speak. It stops being an election question, and starts to become a social effort to pressure a dissenter into silence.
An initiative sometimes takes on an Andy Hardy quality, with a “let’s put on a show” momentum, and the insistence that everyone get on board, get with it, etc. No, and no again: citizens should not be constrained to speak out against an election question by campaign finance restrictions that operate to the benefit of a referendum’s proponents.
The contested circuit court race was an important one. The most important event of this election, though, was likely the acknowledged end of Wisconsin’s unconstitutional enforcement of some particular campaign finance restrictions on political speech.