Rick Esenberg:

A few observations on the election mess here in Wisconsin:

There is reason to be concerned about in-person voting but it’s not clear how much risk voting will actually present. Much of the rhetoric assumes that voters and poll workers will be facing the equivalent of a free fire zone. That’s understandable. Fear of the virus has lead all of us to feel that it is everywhere. But it’s not true. Unless the virus is largely asymptomatic or causes only mild illness, very few people are infected. There some risk in going anywhere but we’ve decided that risk is worth assuming for a variety of reasons. It’s not clear that the line must stop before voting. It is not clear that the polling places will – or have to be – more crowded than the Sendik’s grocery store I was in twice this week in which it was impossible to maintain social distancing. On the one hand, I have rarely been in a polling place for a spring election that has as many people as the typical grocery store has had during the past week. On the other hand, consolidation of polling places will presumably result in more traffic at each one. How much is unclear. Absentee ballot requests are approaching the average turnout in a typical spring election. While presidential preference primaries increase turnout, I don’t know how likely that is given that the Democrats’ race is over and there seems to be no campaign here. Having in-person voting clearly involves contact without social distancing. How much more is unclear. I guess we’ll see.

Having said that, a reasonable case could be made for a delay (although there are some problems with that case). The problem is that changing the rules in midstream is likely to disadvantage one side or the other. Republicans don’t want to go all-mail voting because they seem to believe that their voters are less likely to vote by mail and because they are concerned about voter fraud. Absentee voting creates more opportunities for fraud, particularly if not accompanied by appropriate safeguards – which the Democrats have been seeking to remove. Democrats, on the other hand, are concerned that fear of the virus is strongest in places where they are strong and that are concerned that ballot security measures discourage their voters who they believe will not or cannot navigate them. Our current election rules are a product of where the conflict between those competing views has come out. Using the virus as a way to adjust the balance that current law reflects was always going to assure that no change in the election could take place. If Democrats and Republicans wanted to delay the election, they should have agreed to do that and only that. They should have agreed that the election would be held in, say, early June without changing any other aspect of the law including the opportunity for in-person voting. Since there was apparently no appetite for that on either side – or guarantee that the situation in June would be much different, it didn’t happen.

But a delay would have presented problems. Many local offices have terms expiring in April. While the legislature could have extended the terms, it could not create incumbents to hold over where such incumbents did not exist. Legislators could hope that, for example, Chris Abele would stay on as County Executive in Milwaukee, but could not make him do it. Delaying the election was going to create vacancies during a challenging time for local government. In addition, asking local units of government to safeguard a million ballots for two months without having them misplaced, mishandled or tampered with may have been too much to expect.

The order entered by Judge Conley on Thursday accomplishes a de facto extension of the election by enjoining the requirement in state law that absentee ballots be received by 8 pm on Tuesday while not requiring that they be postmarked by election day. This extends the voting by a week, making election day April 13 for those who requested absentee ballots. While he later amended the order to prevent WEC from disclosing unofficial results, it does appear to apply to everyone who will be privy to them and, of course, will not prevent them from leaking. We are now looking at a situation where both sides will ballot harvest after voting is over and may know what they “need.” Information regarding who has returned a ballot may not be uniformly available. If the election is close, litigation – and suspicion – may break out all over.

May?

Politico Thursday:

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers’ refusal to push for a delay of his state’s Tuesday primary has infuriated fellow Democrats in the state, who are now openly accusing him of failing to prevent an impending train wreck.

As the nation hurtles toward 5,000 coronavirus deaths and governors across the country take extreme steps to keep people at home, Wisconsin is forging ahead with the election despite having its own stay-at-home order. The likely outcome is that Wisconsinites will wake up on election day being told to stay put at the same time they’re greenlighted to head to crowded polling sites.

Other Democrats in the state say the conflicting signals will disenfranchise voters. Already, the sanctity of the vote has been called into question by snafus with early voting: In Milwaukee, some voting sites were closed for a period of the designated voting before being reopened.

“There’s this enormous conflict between what we need to do in a democracy in the midst of a pandemic. You can’t have a stay-at-home order but then tell millions of people to go stand in line and congregate near one another across the state,” said Racine Mayor Cory Mason. “Having an election in the middle of a stay-at-home order makes no sense. It did not have to be this way.”

The intraparty conflict in Wisconsin is a bad look in a state that’s central to the party’s hopes of beating President Donald Trump in November. It also doesn’t bode well for a unified message in the run-up to the Democratic convention in Milwaukee, an event that was just pushed back a month to August.

While Democrats across Wisconsin have called for postponing the election, pointing to health concerns and the inability to staff polling sites, Evers has cited his limited authority to impose a delay against Republican resistance in the Legislature.

Evers has advocated that residents vote by mail and called on lawmakers to ease up on election day requirements to allow more flexibility on when ballots could be turned in and counted.

On Thursday, a federal judge provided some relief. While refusing to move the primary, U.S. District Judge William Conley extended the deadline by one day to request absentee ballots and is allowing voters six additional days after Election Day to return them. Conley in a Wednesday ruling said his hands were tied to postpone the election and called out both Evers and the legislature for not taking the action themselves.

David Fladeboe:

Wisconsin, like the rest of the nation, is facing an unprecedented crisis as we battle COVID-19. With large swaths of the economy shut down or reduced to fight the pandemic, governments at all levels are working to address the fallout. Now that Congress has passed a series of bills to address the emergency, Wisconsin lawmakers are considering next steps.

Gov. Tony Evers released proposed legislation at the end of March and asked legislators to act quickly. While the Badger Institute has already pointed out positive policy prescriptions in his executive orders and proposed legislation, Wisconsin lawmakers need to ensure that the cure isn’t worse than the disease.

Below are a series of guiding principles that should act as a framework for the coming Extraordinary Session of the Legislature.

First, lawmakers should hesitate to take any actions that grow the size and scope of government permanently. Ongoing appropriations, permanent full-time equivalent positions and new layers of red tape should be avoided at all costs.

While the structures of government can help fight a crisis, policymakers need to avoid new layers of bureaucracy that can be just as damaging to public and economic wellbeing. Numerous states and the federal government have been relaxing requirements, regulations and licensing complications to help combat the coronavirus, and these efforts should be continued. Too often the tool created to help serves only to tie our hands in the future.

Next, elected officials need to be careful not to create a long-lasting, one-size-fits-all solution for future health emergencies. Recent policy statements from Wisconsin lawmakers indicate a desire to extend changes made to fight COVID-19 to future crises. But each challenge brings its own unanticipated difficulties, requiring unique approaches and tools.

Future policymakers, communities, businesses and residents will need the flexibility to respond to emergency situations without encountering rigid, imposed “solutions” that could make problems worse. Be wary of policies that automatically trigger the next time an emergency is declared.

Finally, don’t plunge the state into a sea of debt that might make matters worse over the long term. Responsible policies contributed to a state budget surplus that has helped soften the blow of this economic crisis. We need to maintain sound economic thinking and fiscal prudence while supporting those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. New spending must be weighed against the reality that tax revenues are going to be down sharply in 2020 and possibly beyond.

The Badger Institute estimates that Wisconsin could face a $100 million deficit in the transportation budget alone due to a decrease in gas tax collections. Reductions in sales and income tax revenues could be even more severe. Wisconsin’s economy will recover, but before we know the true cost and recovery curve, legislators need to be cautious about signing a check they can’t cash. The empty promises of a bankrupt government won’t help anyone.

If lawmakers keep in mind the long-term consequences of their actions, they can help Wisconsin navigate this storm. Significant policy reforms will be needed, but they can’t come at the expense of our future. A lot of damage already has been done to try to stop the spread of COVID-19; now is our opportunity to stem the tide and prepare ourselves for a vibrant and lasting recovery.