Progressive Thinking

Senator Kathleen Vinehout writes about voting and the Voter ID law. She shares background on the decisions leading up to the U.S. Supreme Court action that puts the Wisconsin ID law on hold.

ALMA - “I haven’t voted in three years,” a Galesville fairgoer told me this summer. He leaned up against the pole barn at the Trempealeau County Fair and shoved his fingers in his pockets. “I don’t want to show up and be told I can’t vote.”

Changes in voting rules are confusing. A requirement to have a certain type of photo ID to vote has been an ‘on again, off again’ law leading up to this election.

On November 4, voters will not be required to show a photo ID.

The U.S. Supreme Court put a hold on Wisconsin’s photo ID law. The high court made no comment on the law and may rule on it later. If not, legislators in January may revisit the photo ID law. But for now, the law is on hold, so the Galesville man should vote along with every other eligible voter.

In 2011, Wisconsin passed its restrictive photo ID law. Restrictive because the types of IDs allowed are limited, requirements on absentee voters are strict and the number of people potentially unable to vote is high– estimated at 300,000.

Since 2011, the law ping-ponged back and forth in federal and state courts as one court found it legal while another declared the law unconstitutional. Most recently the U.S. Supreme Court halted enforcement of the law but did not issue an opinion on its final status.

About the same time as the Supreme Court decision, Judge Richard Posner of the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote the dissenting opinion on that court’s tied vote on taking up an appeal of Wisconsin’s photo ID law before the full court.

At issue – among others – was whether the Wisconsin law was similar to an Indiana law upheld by the courts. If the laws of the two states were similar, presumably Wisconsin’s law could go into effect.

Back in 2011, I argued Wisconsin’s photo ID would be the strictest in the nation. Since then, Texas passed a stricter law. But Wisconsin’s law remains one of the most limiting. The nonpartisan National Council of State Legislatures (NCSL) recently listed Wisconsin as one of 9 strict photo ID laws nationally.

During debate on the Wisconsin law my Senate colleagues and I who opposed the law argued courts would find it unconstitutional because of its restrictive nature and the large of people without acceptable IDs. Proponents of the law argued it was modeled after Indiana already upheld by the nation’s highest court.

In his dissent Judge Posner argued Wisconsin’s law was not comparable to Indiana’s law except that the laws “belong to the same genre”. With 330,000 voters lacking required identification and Wisconsin’s law being more limiting than Indiana, the judge wrote “the effects of the photo ID requirement on voter suppression are likely to be much greater in Wisconsin, especially since as we saw earlier its law is stricter than Indiana’s.”

Many people in Wisconsin are concerned about voter fraud. There are many types of fraud ranging from voting more than once to ballots that are unsecured. However, Wisconsin has a history of clean elections with very little documented voter fraud.

A photo ID law is used to address one type of fraud: voter impersonation. This is when a voter pretends to be someone he or she is not.

In his recent judicial opinion Judge Posner summarized: “There is compelling evidence that voter impersonation fraud is essentially nonexistent in Wisconsin.”

In conclusion, Judge Posner wrote: “There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens.”

Rules governing voting make a difference in how many people go to the polls. Wisconsin ranks high among voter participation in elections. For example, in 2012, Wisconsin ranked second only to Minnesota with 73% of eligible voters voting; Indiana ranked 40th with 56% of voters going to the polls.

Voting is a precious right in our democracy. Democracy works when large numbers of people are involved on Election Day.

So, go vote!

Should money collected in gas tax and motor vehicle registration fees be kept in the Transportation Fund and used only for transportation purposes? Senator Kathleen Vinehout shares her concerns about the proposed constitutional amendment appearing on the Nov. 4th ballot.

EAU CLAIRE - “Tell us about the Transportation Constitutional Amendment,” the Eau Claire man asked.

On November 4th people have the opportunity to vote on an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution. The question, paraphrased, is: should money collected in gas tax and motor vehicle registration fees be kept in the Transportation Fund and used only for transportation purposes?

Proponents argue ‘Yes’. Money set aside for roads should be kept in the Transportation Fund. But nothing in state government is simple. And even if the amendment passes, problems funding roads are not solved.

People drive less and drive more efficient vehicles. Gas tax and motor vehicle registration funds aren’t keeping up with state spending on roads. Increasing debt payments for past spending takes a bigger bite every year.

At the same Eau Claire neighborhood conversation I was asked “Why are we voting on something that won’t solve the problem?”

Good question!

Recent history helps explain why the amendment is before voters. Changing the Constitution is a slow process – and for good reason – so this citizen vote has been in the works for some time.

The state budget contains many funds. Two funds are very large pots of money: the Transportation Fund and the General Fund. Money from the General Fund pays for schools, health care, UW, local government, and prisons.

Moving money from Transportation to the General Fund began in earnest in 2003, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB). Governor Doyle faced a Republican-controlled legislature and a structural deficit greater than the one inherited by Governor Walker. Not surprisingly priorities between the Governor and lawmakers differed.

The most dramatic action came when Governor Doyle used veto powers to prevent a deep cut in education by moving road funds to the General Fund. Road builders and many Republicans cried ‘foul’. Thus was the genesis of this November’s vote.

In Governor Walker’s budgets, money moved in the opposite direction – schools and the UW were shorted while General Fund dollars moved to roads.

Both governors borrowed to pay for roads with General Fund money: a cumulative $1.3 billion over 12 years. This shorts money available for health and schools well into the future. In addition, borrowing increased in the Transportation Fund as spending outpaced revenue. Money paid to debt service will hit nearly 20% of all transportation spending by the 2015-16 budget.

Misinformation about the amendment abounds. For example, in recent legislative forums, listeners heard the Transportation Fund is not keeping up with the cost of roads because money was taken from the fund and never paid back.

Yes, money was taken from the fund but it was paid back and more.

Opponents of the constitutional amendment argue lawmakers should not be bound by “budgeting in the constitution”. Future legislatures should be free to move money from one fund to another as needs dictate. As a woman said, “What if there’s a huge surplus in the Transportation Fund and disaster strikes Wisconsin? Do we leave dying residents because there is a ‘lockbox’ on road money?”

Others argue the amendment is “political payback” for assistance by the road builders – one of the most powerful lobbying interests.

In 2013 the Transportation Finance and Policy Commission issued a key report on transportation problems - Keep Wisconsin Moving. The new Commission, established in the 2011-13 budget, was entirely composed of political appointees - a majority of Governor Walker’s appointees.

Their report focused mostly on the need for increased spending. Not surprisingly as a majority of commission members had present or past ties to the road building industry. The report paid very little attention to getting more for current road spending. But herein lies part of the answer.

A recent editorial in the Wausau Daily Herald reminds us: One important part of dealing with the state's transportation gap will be to reduce spending on transportation. Maintaining good roads is vital, but taxpayers should be able to expect that every project is conducted efficiently; every proposal is scrutinized to determine if it really needs to be done.

Evaluating the effectiveness of existing spending should be the first step before ordering new spending. A constitutional amendment is no substitute for careful, deliberative and transparent governing.

Governor Walker wants to drug test applicants making SNAP (food stamps) and Unemployment Insurance claims. Findings about drug testing in other states including Florida and Tennessee show that drug testing costs far more to implement than was saved. And courts have ruled that drug testing recipients of public benefits without reason to believe the person abused drugs is unconstitutional.

MADISON - “If you require drug testing for unemployment insurance claims are you going to drug test farmers for crop insurance next?” the Colfax farmer asked the candidate.

In several recent legislative forums, local candidates advocated for a proposal to drug test people making Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and unemployment insurance claims.

Is this a good idea?

Unemployment insurance is a program that originated in Wisconsin in 1932. In general, unemployment benefits are financed by taxes paid by employers into the state’s unemployment reserve fund. Both federal and state law governs unemployment insurance.

Wisconsin receives $1.4 billion in unemployment insurance benefits from employer contributions and federal money according to the Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) ‘single’ audit of federal funds paid in 2012-13.

SNAP is a federal program. Wisconsin received $1.2 billion in SNAP funds from Uncle Sam.

In general, people making up to 200% of the federal poverty level can apply for SNAP benefits. This would be a little over $22,000 annual income for an individual who would be eligible for a $200 benefit a month.

The state is responsible for assuring the SNAP program is properly administered. Wisconsin has been rewarded with bonus payments from the feds for improved administrative performance. A 2012 LAB audit led the state to make further oversight improvements including a card trafficking investigation unit and a computer-matching system to assure prisoners don’t receive benefits.

States have proposed drug-testing recipients of public benefits since federal welfare reform in 1996 according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

At least 11 states have some type of law requiring drug testing for certain applicants of public programs. But courts struck down some of these laws.

For example, in 2013 the District Court permanently stopped enforcement of Florida’s law. The court found the law violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibiting unreasonable searches.

According to the New York Times, the 2011 Florida law showed few results while it was enforced: only 2.6% of the 4,086 people tested positive for drugs (most often marijuana). The Times reported, “State records showed the requirement cost more money to carry out than it saved.” The Tampa Bay Times reported, in 2012, the program suffered a net loss of $45,780. That’s not counting thousands of hours of staff time to implement and litigation costs to defend the program.

The Florida decision was based on a 2003 Michigan Court of Appeals case. The Court said forcing every Michigan recipient of public benefits to be drug tested without reason to believe the person abused drugs was unconstitutional.

According to NCSL most states use some test of “reasonable suspicion” before requiring a drug test. Most laws apply the requirement to persons applying for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Wisconsin law requires TANF applicants to disclose felony convictions. Those with a felony conviction must take a drug test.

Are people who apply for public programs more likely to use drugs? The answer appears to be ‘No’. According to the Georgetown Law Journal, drug use in the general public is 8.7% compared to the less than 3% found in Florida’s testing of public benefit recipients. ThinkProgress, a current affairs website, reported Tennessee started drug testing in 2014 and found just one user after testing 800 people.

The farmer in Colfax raises an important question about drug testing. A person making an unemployment insurance claim is not too dissimilar from a farmer making a crop insurance claim. In both cases the program is financed with a mix of federal and private money paid into a reserve fund; in both cases the person is without income.

Public programs must be carefully monitored for fraud. Programs must be easy to administer and fraud investigation must be built into administration. With little evidence that those using drugs are disproportionately applying for SNAP and filing unemployment claims, it makes little sense to spend more money on drug testing.

Instead it seems this proposal is one more example of demonizing a certain group of people for political gain. Applying for aid is difficult enough. Asking someone who can’t afford to eat to pee in a cup just adds to the humiliation.

Senator Kathleen Vinehout writes about the findings of two recently released studies regarding frac sand mining.

EAU CLAIRE - “What new information do we have about the mines?” the Eau Claire reporter asked me.

The reporter was referring to two sand mine studies recently released; one by a committee under the charge of the Trempealeau County Board and the other by the Boston Action Research group of the Civil Society Institute.

Communities at Risk, the Boston study, details sand mining activities across the Midwest. Western Wisconsin is the epicenter of the explosion of mines. The study mentions familiar concerns about frac mining including water and air quality and financial issues and adds new details on data and possible legislative remedies.

A Final Report on the Public Health Impacts of Non-metallic Industrial Sand Mining in Trempealeau County is a comprehensive overview of possible health effects. The committee made 59 recommendations including minimizing light and noise pollution; keeping communities stable; and protecting air, ground and surface water.

Recommendations were developed with the support of data collected from residents. For example, almost 90% of residents wanted protection of water. The “most important” two strategies were Protecting Drinking Water and Protecting the Environment.

The Trempealeau report detailed problems with water affecting both residents and other industries. Residents reported changes to the taste of water following mine blasting; one neighbor had a well replaced by the mine because of damage; the Gold’n Plump chicken processing plant cleaned very fine sand from water and spent several thousand dollars on sand separators and specialized screens to minimize sand in the water. The company wonders whether they need to drill a new well.

Also newly reported, Communities at Risk included new details from Wisconsin DNR data showing “highly damaging water pollution” in the form of heavy metals in sand wash ponds adjacent to mines. Heavy metals entering surface water can be a problem with iron ore mining but, to my knowledge, was never previously identified with sand mining.

Both studies expressed concern about the effects of contaminated water and air on human health. The Trempealeau Committee recommended ongoing water monitoring for several years after the mine closes. Air monitoring should be conducted for dust particles at the mine and in residential sites near the mine.

Monitoring should begin on the smallest and most dangerous of dust particles – those smaller than 2.5 microns. The Boston study reported Wisconsin does not now require monitoring on these particles.

Because exposure to dust can cause disease many years later, the Boston study recommends local and state officials conduct baseline health studies now and continue for many years into the future.

And what about all those jobs created by the mine? Both reports discuss economic impacts of mines.

The Trempealeau report detailed job creation at two mines; one had 30 full-time employees and three part-time office workers, all lived within an hour of the mine. The other mine, still under construction, had 5 full-time operators who were all from outside the region. They expected to hire 25 employees once under full operation.

The Boston report examined a study on the costs and benefits of mining. The study expressed concern about the mines effect on other industries including tourism, writing “frac sand mining jobs would continue to be a miniscule fraction of all jobs in the counties with frac sand resources, suggesting that, in many cases, the risks far outweigh any benefits”.

What can the state do to assist communities grappling with the impacts of mining? Wisconsin needs more inspectors to monitor compliance with existing laws. The two positions approved in the last budget are not nearly adequate.

Trempealeau County is right to monitor small and large particles. Let’s use the state’s resources to assist local counties. We don’t have to look far to find out how this can be accomplished.

The Minnesota Legislature directed it’s DNR to create a guidance document for local government stating what and how to regulate the mines and how to protect water quality and public health; new air standards for silica dust are in the works. And Minnesota funds a “Bluffland Landscape Coordinator” who assists local government in drafting ordinances to protect the blufflands.

These are good ideas to help struggling communities at risk.

###

Below you will find links to those studies.  Kathleen includes recommendations for legislative action to assist communities and counties affected by sand mines.   http://www.thewheelerreport.com/wheeler_docs/files/0925csi.pdf http://www.tremplocounty.com/landmanagement/nmm/documents/PublicHealthImpactsofNMISMinTrempealeauCounty.pdf

The most recent audit of the state’s job creation entity, the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC), continues to report problems with management of economic development grants and loans. Coupled with previous audits, the new audit raises questions about WEDC's policies and procedures, whether it is successful in assisting with job creation and ultimately, whether it is a good investment of taxpayer dollars.

MADISON - “I’m really uncomfortable with all these questions,” Linda told me. We were discussing the most recent audit of the state’s job creation agency: Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC).

WEDC is a quasi-private entity formed by the governor in 2011 in an attempt to boost job creation. It is run almost entirely with state tax dollars.

A recently released Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) report adds detail to the agency’s administrative costs and management of economic development grants and loans in Fiscal Years 2011-12 and 2012-13.

The big question, did the agency successfully assist businesses in creating jobs, was not addressed in this audit. A companion audit last year reported there was no verification of claims of tens of thousands of jobs created.

The recent audit detailed administrative expenses and the management of tens of millions in economic development grants and loans. The audit found instances of missing or poor documentation in aspects of operation, including non-payroll expenses, merit awards, and the tracking of grants and loans. Poor accounting practices have plagued WEDC since its creation.

The earlier audit found WEDC didn’t have basic managerial processes in place, nor a clear budget or consistent accounting practices. Even in the September 2014 agency response to the recent audit, WEDC officials acknowledged written accounting procedures had not been developed. They plan to develop a formal accounting procedure manual in 2015.

The 2013 audit found WEDC did not oversee delinquent loans, reporting “In October of 2012, WEDC officials told the governing board they became aware one week earlier that WEDC had never monitored repayment of loans, including those that were past due.”

The recent audit reported that WEDC presented a limited methodology on calculating loan delinquencies. The limitation obscured the fact that nearly 9% of the total outstanding loan balance was delinquent.

I observed the delinquency rate at commercial banks on commercial and industrial loans was between .8 and 2.5% during the same period according to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. WEDC officials are quick to point out they are not a bank and make riskier loans than banks.

In their September 2014 response to the LAB audit WEDC continued to obfuscate the truth. In what appears to be an attempt to mislead, the letter lists several management outcomes and details “significant progress made” in six categories, even though the audit didn’t evaluate and in most cases never discussed these items.

In one item, WEDC officials claimed a “major reduction” in delinquent loans. But the audit found many loans were written off, forgiven or restructured to delay a payment – hardly “significant progress”.

Is the agency adequately monitoring loans and grants awarded to businesses and referring to a collection agency those loans that are delinquent? Most assuredly in the first two years, the answer was ‘no’.

Did WEDC use taxpayer money to assist businesses in the creation of verifiable jobs? We can’t answer this question. Although we know from the first audit that not a single job was verified in the first year of WEDC’s existence.

Is WEDC a wise investment of taxpayer dollars? We still don’t know. However, there is plenty of evidence to say in its first two years, the agency was a mess.