Wisconsin Elections 2008 - Analysis of a Wave
What does it mean for Wisconsin?

By Andrew Engel

The Hamilton Consulting Group

Dec. 9, 2008

© 2008 The Hamilton Consulting Group

Print Version

For the first time in over 20 years, Democrats hold the Governor’s Office and majority control in both houses of the Legislature. The implications of these watershed 2008 elections in Wisconsin are numerous; some obvious, with others nuanced yet still vital. This paper takes a look back at the 2008 elections, the upcoming budget and legislative session as well as a look forward to the 2010 elections.

The Democrats and Republicans from each house elected their leadership for next session and ushered in a new speaker in the Assembly, Rep. Mike Sheridan, who, with Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, will set the tone of the legislative agenda for the next two years. Speaker-elect Sheridan has already named Rep. Mark Pocan (Madison) as the new Assembly chair of the Joint Finance Committee (JFC). Rep. Pocan and Senate JFC Chair Mark Miller (Monona) will set the agenda for the 16-member budget writing committee that will be dominated by 12 Democratic members next session.

Amidst this flurry of post-election activity also came sobering announcements regarding the state budget condition. On November 20, the Governor announced the state is now facing a $5.4 billion deficit next session and a potential $346 million shortfall in the current fiscal year, which ends June 30, 2009.

The legislative agenda will unfold over the course of the next several months, but the Governor, Sen. Decker, and others have already put the marker down on certain issues they expect to revisit. The Hospital Assessment and Oil Tax proposals that failed to pass last session top the list, with other proposals previously blocked by the Republican Assembly close behind.

The Governor and Democratic leaders are also working on an economic stimulus package for early next session, the details of which are still being worked out, but early indications point to revenue uppers combined with the expediting of infrastructure projects.

The budget deficit is based on economic projections and assumptions that could change over time. But the figures announced on November 20 represent the latest fiscal reports. Nearly all observers agree the budget situation is more than cloudy; it is raining and there is no rainy day fund in place to soften the impact of even a short-term recession. The harsh reality of the budget will be a tough first test for the new majority and is likely to temper everyone’s agenda.

The 2008 Elections, Leadership and 2010

Wisconsin for Obama
It was an interesting election in Wisconsin. Many predicted record voter turnout in the state, but the percentage of Wisconsin’s voter turnout was actually down from the 2004 Presidential Election. Whether there was apathy due to a race already decided, or Republican voters staying home is yet unclear.

Obama cruised to a 13-point victory in the state winning over 75 percent of Wisconsin’s counties.  Wisconsin had never before seen the level of television advertising combined with a tactical overwhelming field organization in a presidential campaign.

With the top of the ticket success and money on their side, Democrats in the state legislature seemed poised to once again take advantage of the electoral atmosphere. But did they?

With the Democratic “wave” essentially hitting our state for a second straight election, only three Republican incumbents lost their seats. The Democrats in the Assembly were able to pick up some open seats previously held by Republicans, which helped expand their majority, but over 90 percent of Republican incumbents who ran for re-election in the state legislature returned to their seats. 100 percent of incumbent Democrats who ran for office returned and all eight Congressional members returned to office as well.

Voters wanted change at the top of the ticket, but were less emphatic about change further down the ballot in Wisconsin.

The Assembly Flips
The Assembly Democrats defeated three incumbent Republicans (Moulton, Lasee, and Hines) and won two open seats formerly held by Republicans, while losing zero ground with incumbents or open seats. The final tally leaves a 52-46-1 majority for Democrats in the Assembly. After the 2004 elections, the Republican majority was 60 members to 39 Democratic members, meaning a 13-member gain for the Democrats in two cycles and a 14-member loss for Republicans in those four years.

As is often the case with 99 seats up for grabs, every two years provides a few surprises. Although in 2008, while there were some close calls (Dan Meyer by less than 200 votes and Mark Honadel by less than 650 votes), Republican incumbents who did lose should not have been too surprised as they all had television ads running against them in their districts.

In the Assembly, the third party and candidate money was much more balanced between Republicans and Democrats than in the Senate. Third parties from both sides likely eclipsed the $1 million mark and incumbents on both sides had healthy war chests. 

Democratic special interests were up with heavy television buys in five districts, winning three and losing two, while Republicans played on television against four incumbent Democrats, losing all of them. Healthy Wisconsin, a Senate Democratic universal health care plan, was used as a criticism against many Assembly Democratic candidates (none of whom voted for the plan), but the impact of those ads varies. Most candidates who were negatively targeted on television for supporting Healthy Wisconsin won their races, some handily.

2010 Elections Preview
Because 99 members in the Assembly run for re-election every two years, the target list is difficult to assess this early in the process. Taking the 2006 results into account didn’t provide a path to which legislators ultimately would be targeted and eventually defeated in 2008. On the Republican side, three incumbents lost. Of the three, only Terry Moulton had what could be considered a close race. Doc Hines won his race comfortably, while Frank Lasee didn’t even have an opponent in 2006 (which was likely a contributing factor to 2008’s results). 

The districts where the battle for the Assembly majority will take place in 2010 won’t surface for awhile, but like the Senate Democrats, Assembly Dems will wait to see if they will be the focal point for a take back attempt by Republicans.

Caucus Leadership
On the Democratic side, the new Speaker of the Assembly is Mike Sheridan, Majority Leader is Tom Nelson, Speaker Pro Tem is Tony Staskunas, Peter Barca is Caucus Chair and Barbara Toles is Caucus Vice Chair. For the Republicans, the Minority Leader in the Assembly is Jeff Fitzgerald, Mark Gottlieb is Assistant Minority Leader, Scott Suder is Caucus Chair, and Joel Kleefisch is Caucus Vice Chair.

The wild card this session will be the Assembly Democrats. Most of the members have not been in power before, have not held committee chairs, and have not had the ability to stop or push forward legislation with the efficacy their current stature provides. In addition to not having been in power, nearly 40 percent of the caucus is new in the last four years, and even the top two leaders have only two terms of experience under their belts.

Speaker Sheridan’s quick ascension to his leadership post may be a historical anomaly, but he is viewed as pragmatic with strong leadership qualities, and someone who can work with all sides on an issue. He did have to battle for the spot with veteran Rep. Jon Richards, a polished legislator and strong voice for Milwaukee. Signs of residual fallout from a leadership competition partly based on a regional breakdown will be watched as the session begins.

All of this will lead to a feeling out period between Speaker Sheridan and his caucus. A six-seat margin means that it only takes three Assembly Democrats to align with a Republican minority to kill a bill (assuming the Independent, a former Republican, is also opposed), meaning legislation may not move as quickly through both houses as some anticipate. Newly acquired power can sometimes stifle productivity rather than promote it, although this will change on a case-by-case basis.

It should also be noted that the Governor was very helpful to the Assembly Democrats during this last cycle and has a good relationship with its leaders. This gives proposals he is supporting a stronger chance for passage in the Assembly.

Status Quo in the Senate

The Senate caucuses have come back from the 2008 cycle with an unchanged 18-15 Democratic majority. Former Senators Roger Breske and Carol Roessler left their seats to take jobs in the Administration and were replaced by members of their own party. Former Democratic Rep. Jim Holperin replaces Breske, and Republican Randy Hopper will be the new senator from Carol Roessler’s former district. Otherwise, 31 of the 33 senators from last session return.

State Republicans trying to find a silver lining from 2008 are pointing to the fact they were able to hold serve in the Senate against a sizeable spending disadvantage combined with a major loss at the top of the ticket, setting them up nicely for 2010.

Democrats would argue that they were highly competitive and almost victorious in places they haven’t been even able to consider competing in before, and they were able to hold the Republican-leaning Sen. Breske seat which, conventional wisdom believed, would turn Republican whenever Sen. Breske decided not to run for re-election. Additionally, their top targeted Senators cruised to victory with over 65 percent of the vote. Wisconsin also followed a national trend wherein state houses accounted for less gains in legislative seats for Democrats, due to so many of the swing seats being won in 2006, thus leaving fewer seats available to flip in 2008.

Caucus Leadership and Committee Assignments
Sen. Russ Decker was unanimously selected to the position of Majority Leader, Dave Hansen (Green Bay) is Assistant Majority Leader, John Lehman (Racine), Caucus Chairman, and Kathleen Vinehout is Caucus Vice Chair. On the Republican side Scott Fitzgerald will remain as Minority Leader, Glenn Grothman is Assistant Minority Leader, Joe Leibham, Caucus Chairman and Sheila Harsdorf is Caucus Vice Chair.

With such little change in caucus membership, the Senate is less of a wildcard than the Assembly.  Senate Majority Leader Decker is a strong leader and a steady voice in his caucus. Arguably, no one in the Legislature has a better understanding of the state budget and the politics that surround it than Decker and his team. Decker is not afraid to defend tough votes, which helps instill confidence in the newer senators when potentially controversial issues arise.

2010 Elections Preview
Some pollsters have already predicted 2010 a tough year for Democrats nationwide, and midterm elections have historically been a boon to the party defeated in the previous presidential election. Putting aside predictions on the mood of the electorate, the Senate Democrats will have four freshmen in swing districts up for re-election in 2010 while Senate Republicans have potentially four swing districts to defend as well. It should be noted that no Senate Democratic incumbents have been defeated in the last three cycles.

While some considered Sen. Kathleen Vinehout (Alma) an upset winner in 2006, it is her western Wisconsin District that holds the best Democratic performance of the four freshmen, followed by Sen. John Lehman’s Racine County district. Sen. Kreitlow’s Chippewa Valley district and Sen. Sullivan’s West Allis/Wauwatosa area districts had been previously held by Republicans for many years and are tougher to defend by the numbers, but all four seats will be early battlegrounds.

On the Republican side, four senators reside in districts that in the current context could be considered swing: Al Lassee (DePere), Dale Schultz (Richland Center), Joe Leibham (Sheboygan), and Mike Ellis (Neenah). While it may be surprising to some, when the performance numbers are recalculated using the 2008 elections it is possible that Sen. Ellis’s District will be closer to a 50/50 partisan split on paper than will Leibham’s. However, residing in a swing district doesn’t necessarily result in a competitive race (see Dave Hansen).

It should also be kept in mind that there is usually at least one unexpected departure each session. Senators Breske and Roessler changed the field in 2008, Sen. Stepp’s surprising departure opened up a swing seat in 2006, and Sen. Mark Meyer left after one term prior to the 2004 election.

Insiders knew that Senate Democrats would hang on to the majority in 2008 and the Senate Democrats used this to adeptly attract contributions. The overall discrepancy in funding, when combining third parties and candidate spending, was unprecedented. It remains to be seen if that advantage will exist in two years or if the Senate becomes the focal point for a take back attempt by Republicans, thus moderating the previous advantages held by Senate Dems.

The Wisconsin Governor

While Gov. Jim Doyle was not up for re-election, there has been much speculation as to whether he will take a role in President Obama’s administration. Gov. Doyle has repeatedly stated he is not pursuing a position, but has left the door open by acknowledging that if Obama asks him to serve, he will consider it.

One job for which the Governor seemed to be a logical choice was that of Attorney General, but it is no longer on the table as President-elect Obama is in the process of appointing Eric Holder to that position. Many other cabinet positions have recently been filled and speculation about Doyle’s leaving immediately for the Obama administration has waned in recent weeks.

If, as expected, the Governor heads toward re-election, it appears he will be taking on current Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. Walker began a campaign for governor in 2006 but dropped out of his primary battle with Mark Green, who was then defeated by Gov. Doyle.

State Republicans will have some tough decisions in 2010 on how to best utilize resources. There likely will be insufficient money to effectively run against a well financed Gov. Doyle, a traditionally well funded Senate Democratic Caucus, and the new Assembly Democratic majority. At the outset, it would seem from a financing standpoint that Republican interests will have to choose two of the three entities to effectively pursue. How these targets emerge could change how the caucuses and Administration operate over the next two years. However, how the entities operate will also determine their target status.

2010 is a more important election year…..or is it?
Typically, the 2010 elections should produce those who will lead in Wisconsin’s upcoming redistricting efforts. For that purpose, it could be argued it is even more important for either caucus to have majorities post the 2010 elections rather than currently be holding majorities.

Political chatter indicates a possible attempt at an early redistricting effort, having the potential effect of solidifying Democratic majorities for years to come. That potential may be overshadowed by the politics of trying to redistrict early. It would be a tough sell for Democrats, as they will be required to redistrict again in 2010 with new data. Making the case to go early and using eight-year-old census data will not be well received by the media and government watchdog groups and would likely result in constant editorial attacks. In addition, the makeup of the Supreme Court would be unlikely to help the Democrats in their effort should a court battle ensue. It leaves a question as to whether such an effort contributes negatively to an overall environment that could also work against Democrats in general in 2010.

On the flip side, it could be argued that no legislator is going to lose an election because he or she voted to redistrict early (in fact, they may be more likely to win) and, if done early enough, it might be a forgotten issue by the 2010 elections.

Wisconsin State Budget

The news continues to get worse. Wisconsin will face a deficit of more than $5.4 billion with little time to fix it. There may also be a need for a budget adjustment bill to deal with an end-of-fiscal year balance deficit of $346 million.

Larger revenue uppers from the last budget process (Governor’s or Senate’s) that failed to pass include the hospital assessment, the gross receipts tax, combined reporting, streamlined sales tax, the real estate transfer fee and the full amount of the cigarette tax (another 25 cents). But the two-year total from the 2007-08 version of these uppers won’t amount to 25 percent of the current deficit when taking into account that much of the hospital assessment gets put back into MA reimbursement.

It should also be pointed out that the budget may not be the place where some of these revenue enhancers pass; it could happen earlier. Since the votes are now there for many of these items, it is not necessary to wait for the budget process to finish before implementing the changes, and since Wisconsin needs money now, a revenue package could surface early in the next session.

Revenue Uppers/Taxes
Gross Receipts Tax: Some version of a gas tax is likely to pass. The oil franchise fee provision from last session will be recycled, and since the bulk of the legislative resistance now lies in the minority party, the fee could be dialed up. The problem that still remains with this provision is whether or not the “no pass through” clause will pass judicial muster, and if not, will Wisconsin be on the hook to return the money to the oil companies;  money it will have already spent.

The Hospital Assessment: The Hospital Assessment is in a similar position as the gas tax. The formula can now be made more advantageous to the state to bring in more GPR, but unlike the gross receipts tax, a formula change is less likely. Hospitals have stated their approval for the measure in its previous form because it captures hundreds of millions in federal MA reimbursement. A significant formula change could erode that support.

Cigarette Tax: The remaining 25-cent tax on cigarettes from the Governor’s last budget proposal would seem to be the minimum starting point this time around. The Governor would likely have the legislative support to go higher and can be expected to at a minimum complete the full budget request from his last proposal.

Streamlined Sales Tax ($46.5 million): Proposed in the Department of Revenue’s budget request, the streamlined sales tax is supported by local retailers and merchants who argue it helps create a level playing field with internet and catalogue retailers. While some items will be removed from having to pay Wisconsin’s sales tax, the balance of the provision brings in more tax revenue to the state.

Combined Reporting ($200 million): Combined reporting requires that all corporations and their subsidiaries file combined reports and tax returns for state income and franchise tax purposes. While not in the Governor’s budget last go round, the Senate Democrats included the provision in both their budget and budget adjustment bills and will be certain to support the provision again. Many Assembly Democrats have not voted on the corporate tax law change, but many are expected to be supportive. What remains to be seen is how the Governor will address combined reporting should it get to his desk in the budget process or sooner.

Real Estate Transfer Fee ($140 million): While inclusion into the budget process is not out of the question, it would be surprising to see this increase revisited in the current economic environment.  

New enhancers
There is a large list of potential new revenue enhancers. One version can be found at the “Catalog of Tax Reform Options for Wisconsin,” [Collier, D., Norman, J. (IWF); Peacock, Jon (WCCF)], but the one that seems most obvious would be the reimplementation of the estate tax as revenue upper. Some estimates have it bringing in $100 million a year, and there may be ways to capture even more revenue than before its recent sunset. Fully capturing capital gains tax revenue fits into the Democrat’s tax fairness messaging.

Where this all leaves us?
Take into account the high end of all   the revenue enhancers mentioned and Wisconsin is not close to getting out of the current deficit. To fully do this there are four things that will likely happen:

• Increase the revenue taken in by the state
• Make cuts to current state spending
• Rely on a federal infusion of money
• Borrow

The first two we know are happening, but the last two are necessary and would need to account for a large piece of the deficit. With many states across the country seeing record deficits, the new President appears to be working on proposals that help states. How that package looks, and what it means for Wisconsin remains to be seen, but it can be expected there will be some help from President Obama and the federal government.

Finally, while it’s hard to play all of this out from our perspective at this time, a couple things seem certain: The reeling economy means Wisconsin’s deficit is likely to get larger rather than smaller, and without a large infusion of money, programs across the state will be in jeopardy. These two factors can lead one to believe the state could have to borrow money to completely get out from under the deficit.

Politics Around the Process

Top-down
If past precedent holds, the Governor won’t be looking for too much input from the legislature in the creation of the budget document. Governor Doyle, along with agency heads and his budget team, have been in the process of creating the document for months. Past history likely won’t differ significantly just because of the partisan shift in control. The Governor will put forward the Budget next February, and push for passage with leaders in the two Houses.

Vote Tally
Twelve-four is not a vote tally that most (if any) of the current Democratic Joint Finance Committee members are familiar with, at least not the winning side of that number. Joint Finance Committee Co-chairs Mark Pocan and Mark Miller have a solid relationship, and both have budget experience. Pocan has been on JFC for a longer period of time and was part of an 8-8 split during the last budget process.

In addition to Pocan, Speaker Sheridan has named Pedro Colon Vice Chair, and Tamara Grigsby (Milwaukee), Cory Mason (Racine), Gary Sherman (Port Wing), and Jennifer Shilling (La Crosse) to round out the Assembly team. On the Senate side things remain the same this session as with the closing of last session with Majority Leader Decker appointing Senators Dave Hansen (Green Bay), Julie Lassa (Stevens Point), John Lehman (Racine), Judy Robson (Beloit) and Lena Taylor (Milwaukee) to serve with Co-chair Miller. Minority members include Robin Vos (Racine County) and Phil Montgomery (Ashwaubenon) from the Assembly, and the return of Senators Darling (Waukesha) and Olsen (Ripon) from the Senate.

Conference Committee?
It is too far out to speculate, but it would not be unprecedented under same party rule to set up a formal conference committee to finalize the details. In the last 25 years a Budget Conference Committee was formed twice when both the Senate and Assembly were under one party control. Both times it has been the Democrats (and both times Senator Risser was on the Conference Committee).

Session Agenda Items

First cut
The list is growing of what Democratic leaders are hoping to accomplish in the upcoming session, but so far none of it should be a surprise. Within days after the election, the Governor cited a few specific items he would like to see passed:  Requiring insurance companies to provide treatment for autism and cochlear implants, and the implementing a rating system for child care providers.

Senate Majority Leader Decker has announced the first bill out of the chute for Senate Dems will be to raise the minimum wage and to index it similarly to how it is handled at the federal level. Speaker Sheridan mentioned the regulation of issue ads in his speech to his caucus as a top priority.

None of these items at this point seem out of character and are likely to pass (although not to say there won’t be opposition), but the looming budget deliberations may put a lot of agenda items on hold until the state’s economic picture is more clear.

Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em
A statewide smoking ban will again be in play, and while its odds for passage may have improved, they have not necessarily guaranteed a victory for supporters of the ban.

While supported strongly by the Governor and many vocal Democratic legislators, the ban cuts across party lines, and it is still unclear in either house if the votes are there to pass the bill.

Last session, the Assembly avoided the still controversial issue by saying they would address it if the Senate passed the ban. The Assembly Republicans never got the chance to deal with the bill as it never made it out of the state Senate. The Senate was, and still is, an 18-15 Senate Democratic majority with only one new member on each side of the aisle (and probably no shift when considering smoking ban support/opposition with the replaced Senators).

A compromise that surfaced last time around could be pursued by the Senate that implements the ban within a few years, but if that doesn’t happen the Senate may let the Assembly deal with the bill first this time around.

Lying in wait
There are multiple interest groups that, like legislative Democrats, have not experienced the ability to move proactive legislation through the state Legislature because one or both of the houses belonged to Republicans. While a Democratic governor and senate made it easier, the removal of the goalie in that of the Assembly Republicans means a lot of pent up legislation could be unleashed.

In some instances it will be hard to gauge which proposals might come forward because in years where there was no chance of passage, they may not have been offered. But these groups understand this is a rare opportunity to move their agenda items forward, and that this opportunity may only have a two-year window.  The following is a list of some interest groups and what could be expected.

1. Environmentalists

If the environmental community had to pick two of their three best state legislative advocates, Sen. Mark Miller and Rep. Spencer Black would be on almost everyone’s list. What else do Miller and Black have in common? They are both chairs in their respective houses of the environmental committees.  It should be noted that while Senator Miller chairs the Environment Committee, Senator Holperin’s Transportation Committee also includes “Natural Resources,” and Senator Plale’s Commerce Committee also includes “Energy.” Rep. Black has been named chair of the Natural Resources Committee, a position he held for seven years when Democrats previously held the majority.

From an interest group standpoint, environmental groups have already seen victories in regard to the Great Lakes Water Compact and mercury rules. Other pieces of legislation that will surface in some format include having an independent secretary of the DNR (as opposed to Governor appointed), and lowering carbon fuel standards.

Also expected are broad changes in the areas of climate change and bio-fuels.  Many of these issues will be addressed at the federal level as well, which could affect how they are handled at the state level.

2. Labor

The top priority for the Labor world right now is passage of the “Employees Free Choice Act” at the federal level, but there will be many provisions that can be expected to move through both state houses.  Almost all the following bills have passed the Senate in recent sessions, and all have a high probability of becoming state law in some form.

• America Jobs Act: This legislation requires contracted services purchased by state government to be performed in the United States, unless they cannot be obtained in this country.

• Collective Bargaining Rights for UW system faculty and academic staff: Self explanatory, it is a top agenda item for the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

• Equal Pay Enforcement: Current law allows workers to pursue reinstatement and back pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act when discrimination in the workplace has been claimed.  Senator Hansen’s Equal Pay Enforcement Bill will allow the Department of Workforce Development to order employers to pay compensatory or punitive damages to workers who are discriminated against under Wisconsin’s Fair Labor Standards Act.

And as a Labor priority, once removed…

• Corporate Tax Disclosure: Last session, AFL-CIO teamed up with Institute for Wisconsin’s Future and Sen. Dave Hansen to propose a bill requiring public companies to disclose how much they pay in corporate income tax and to disclose the strategies they use to lower their taxes. The proposal would not cover private companies.

3. Plaintiff Attorneys

The plaintiffs’ bar through its statewide association, the Wisconsin Association for Justice (formerly the Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers), is expected to pursue a very active agenda with the new makeup of the Wisconsin Legislature.

The organization may request introduction of as many as fifteen different pieces of legislation aimed, in part, at undoing legislation, such as change to joint and several liability, enacted during and since the 1995 legislative session. It is also expected that the plaintiffs’ bar will seek legislation in response to some Supreme Court “insurance decisions” relating to uninsured motorist coverage, stacking, and reducing clauses, among others.

4. Pro-Choice Groups

These groups have been playing defense on their agenda for years, but now have the ability to pass some proactive legislation. In the past session, the highest profile issue in the state Legislature in relation to pro-choice interests was the Compassionate Care for Rape Victims bill that passed both houses and became law. This time around, there seem to be two bills in particular that pro-choice groups will push toward passage, and could garner a heightened focus from anti-choice groups.

• Women’s Health and Safety Act:  Currently Roe v. Wade supersedes Wisconsin law which pro-choice groups believe outlaws and criminalizes abortion. Proposed legislation would implement Roe v. Wade into Wisconsin law, becoming relevant were it overturned at the federal level.

• Birth Control Protection Act: SB 232 previously passed the Senate 19-14 and requires pharmacists to fill a valid prescription for any FDA approved contraceptive.

5. Climate Change

Some of the most significant policy changes as result of the power shift in the Assembly could be in the area of energy and the environment. Bills introduced last session that didn’t pass - such as imposing California emissions standards for motor vehicles (AB 970) and granting the Department of Natural Resources rulemaking authority to regulate climate change (AB 157) - will have a much better chance of passing this session.

6. Healthy Wisconsin/Universal Health Care

From the Senate’s perspective, once again passing Healthy Wisconsin in one form or another will not rest solely on the electoral politics surrounding the plan. The caucus already has 17 members who have voted to pass Healthy Wisconsin, seven of whom were overwhelmingly re-elected since doing so. In addition, opposition to the plan at this point carries no guarantee that a Senator would avoid negative attacks come election time as they’ve already voted for the bill.  As was shown in 2008 issue advocacy ads, a positive nod toward the consideration of universal health care was enough to garner an attack.

The dynamics surrounding the health care issue in the state have changed since the plan was first put in the Senate budget.  First and foremost, there is a Democratic President who is likely to address the issue of health care in the United States.  Will those actions be enough to satisfy legislative Democrats that the major problems in health care are being addressed?

Also, the priority right now for the country is the economy. Two years ago, the issue of health care was at or near the top of the list in polls asking people their concerns.  These days, the issue seems not to be nearly as prominent on as many people’s minds.  In addition, it is considered a sweeping change to how health care runs in our state, and Wisconsinites may be less ready for such a transition with the concern about the economy being so great.

Politicians do not relish seeing their names attached to attack ads, and they all now have a flavor of what those ads will be like down the road. Whether they will be willing to take on those attacks is a fair question.

Conversely, some dynamics have not changed. The health care system in Wisconsin will be further stretched as the economy continues its slide. Many of those not covered by their employers are faced with paying higher premiums or going without health care, and small and medium sized businesses are continuing to struggle with providing adequate health care for their employees. Attack ads claiming that taxpayers will be covering health care for illegal immigrants may not be enough to dissuade those who have made health care reform their mission.

Passion toward the issue aside, various Senate Democrats have been quoted over the last year stating they are not as comfortable with the plan as they once may have been. This makes getting the bill out of the Senate a long shot.

Should Healthy Wisconsin or a similar version pass out of the Senate, it still has two major hurdles to confront: The Governor and the Assembly Democrats. Gov. Doyle signaled loudly and clearly during the budget process that he believed incremental change is the smart approach to health care policy in Wisconsin and he has since started to outline his BadgerChoice program. The Assembly Democrats likely do not have the margin of error to pass such a major change, and would be hard-pressed to pass the bill out of their caucus should it ever make it there.

While there are legislative Democrats dedicated to improving our health care system in Wisconsin, it appears that even before the 2009 Session begins, universal health care in the form of Healthy Wisconsin or any other vehicle faces very long odds of passing the state Legislature.

7. Campaign Finance Reform

Regulation of issue ads, public financing of State Supreme Court races, and a complete overhaul of our campaign finance system will be in play during the next session, but even with Democrats holding both houses none of them are guarantees.

In addition, it will be interesting to watch how the aggressiveness of the recently formed Government Accountability Board will be received by the state legislature.

Issues with those ads
The bill with the best odds of passing will be legislation regulating issue advocacy, primarily by adding financial disclosure provisions, restricting corporate contributions and pushing ads mentioning candidates 60 days back from Election Day.  The bill, formerly known as SB 463, passed unanimously in the Senate but failed on a party line pulling motion in the Assembly.  Now that those party lines have shifted, we can expect to see the bill pass through the Assembly.  During his successful race for Speaker of the House, Rep. Mike Sheridan said passage of issue ad regulation should be a top priority for Democrats.

In addition to the legislature taking on the issue, it appears the Government Accountability Board (GAB) is also going to put forward suggested language, having recently voted to send a draft rule to the legislature. Since Democrats in the legislature had shown a history of being willing to change the law in this area, the GAB’s actions may be viewed by some as invasive. 

As is the case with any law that limits an entity’s ability to participate in the electoral process, it is a certainty that legal challenges will abound.

Chief Commanding Public Officer Financing
In Chief Justice Abrahamson’s upcoming re-election bid for the Supreme Court, Wisconsin has another potentially expensive race for the State Supreme Court looming. Justice Abrahamson is calling for multiple changes to the way Wisconsin elects Supreme Court Justices, including public financing of State Supreme Court races.

This race will likely bring a spotlight to the public financing issue, especially as the measure did pass the Senate and received party line support in an Assembly Democratic attempt to vote on the bill. Referred to as the “Impartial Justice Bill,” passage could be questionable this go around as other proposals have surfaced, including the appointment of justices. Factoring in the potential cost of the provision, which the Fiscal Bureau estimates could exceed $2 million during contested elections, also increases the odds against passage.

At any rate it is unlikely that public financing would be in place in time to have an impact on the 2009 Spring Election for the Supreme Court, thereby causing the issue to lose some of its luster after the election is over.

The Watchdog’s Holy Grail
The Ellis-Erpenbach Senate Bill 12 was part of the call in the Governor’s December 2007 Special Session on campaign finance reform. The Republican Assembly, for the most part, dismissed the comprehensive plan and it stayed on the backburner for most of 2008.

With Democratic majorities in both houses, there are those who believe that a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill can pass the state legislature. This bill would significantly alter how campaigns are run in Wisconsin. However, having just been successfully elected under the current system, some legislators may not jump to remove the same advantages that helped them attain their positions.

While the bill may not pass in total, there may be items included in separate pieces of legislation.

Summary

The results of the 2008 elections concluded with a Democratic sweep, but it is still an unknown whether the size of the majorities will allow for sweeping change in Wisconsin policy.

Many of the proposals that passed last session in the Senate but failed in a then Republican Assembly can be expected to find their way to the Governor’s desk, but the process to get them there may not be as easy as some anticipate, and not all of them are guaranteed.

That said, many revenue enhancers that failed in the last budget will pass in this one, as will many of the bill, pushed for by left leaning special interest groups that were bottled up over the years.

Assembly Democrats will undergo a feeling-out period as a new leadership team manages a young caucus with a newly amassed power base. Assembly Republicans will adjust to a status they have not held in 14 years - that of the minority. Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans will go to their respective corners for round two, as their caucuses are nearly identical to the previous session.

As campaign fundraisers can attest to, the 2010 elections have started in earnest. With a governor’s race at the top of the ticket clamping down on available resources, caucuses in both parties could be fighting for attention and respect.

All of the aforementioned will exist under the weight of growing unemployment, a staggering deficit and an economy that is not yet on the mend. How all of the entities respond to the current context will largely dictate whether or not they keep, lose, or gain the confidence of the electorate in two years.