Van Hollen v. Lautenschlager: No Comparison

by folkbum

This is a slight follow-up to Michael's post below about Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's plan to potentially intimidate voters using state Department of Justice agents in polling places.

A line of attack from Republicans this week has been that Van Hollen's predecessor, Peg Lautenschlager, did the same thing. Brian Fraley, in the comments to Michael's post, asks, "So, was it racist and suppression when Lautenschlager did the same thing 4 years ago?" Van Hollen's people have cited it in their own press releases, it's in the AP wire story, it's on Steven Walters's blog, and I fully expect it to be all over the conservative blogs by this afternoon.

However, I would just like to point out why this comparison is ridiculous. (I also hope the Lautenschlager comes out today with a statement to clarify herself, instead of relying on characterizations from the current DOJ of what her position was.) This is Lautenschlager's announcement four years ago (my emphasis):

Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager today announced that the Wisconsin Department of Justice will be sending forty assistant attorneys general and special agents from its Division of Criminal Investigation to polling places in various locations around the state on Election Day (Tuesday November 2, 2004) to ensure compliance with state laws governing elections.

All of the Department of Justice employees participating in this effort to uphold the integrity of the voting process in Wisconsin will receive training from the state Elections Board in the coming week. This training will focus on the rights of citizens to register and vote, as well as the rights of those entitled to observe the election process.

Early on election day, her office followed up with what they were already observing (again, my emphasis):

Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager announced this morning that the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) has already received several reports alleging polling place observers have illegally attempted to turn away Wisconsin voters with misleading and false information.

According to Lautenschlager, persons attempting to vote this morning in Kenosha and Racine were allegedly told by poll observers they are unable to register to vote at the polls on Election Day. Lautenschlager said this statement is untrue; in fact voting day registration is specifically allowed in Wisconsin and attempts, such as those reported, to obstruct the right to vote are illegal in Wisconsin.

"I want to remind all eligible Wisconsin citizens they have the right under Wisconsin law to register at the polls and vote today," Lautenschlager said. [. . .] Lautenschlager assigned Assistant Attorneys General and Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) agents into the field today at polling places in communities throughout Wisconsin, to protect the rights of voters.

It's clear that Lautenschlager's emphasis was on the rights of citizens to register and vote. It may well be that Van Hollen's crew will do some of that, I can't say for sure. However, compare the language Van Hollen is using now to what Lautenschlager's DOJ said four years ago (still my emphasis):

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen announced today that as a part of his election integrity efforts the Wisconsin Department of Justice will be sending assistant attorneys general and special agents from the Division of Criminal Investigation to various locations around the state on Election Day (Tuesday, November 4, 2008), to ensure compliance with state laws governing elections. [. . .]

"An individual's right to vote and have that vote counted is the foundation of our democratic system," said Van Hollen. "Citizens also have a right to vote in fair elections, untainted by election fraud. The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that every citizen's right to vote in a fair election is protected." The Department of Justice will be working with district attorneys, law enforcement authorities, and state and local election officials across the state on election day

The emphasis from Lautenschlager's office in 2004 was protecting the rights of voters. The emphasis from Van Hollen's office in 2008 is to guard against the imagined "vote fraud" that Republicans have been convincing themselves truly exists despite evidence to the contrary.

So when the excuse starts getting tossed around today--I bet Charlie Sykes already has it in his talking points pile for this morning's show--be aware that it's baloney. Van Hollen is playing the clearly partisan role of running down non-existent fraud at the urging of the Republican Party. Lautenschlager was trying to protect voters. Those are not the same, and I do not expect the agents this year to be doing the same thing the agents did four years ago. When you're protecting voters, you act differently than when you're tilting at vote-fraud windmills.

Attorney General, the folkbum endorsement: Peg Lautenschlager

You probably saw it coming, but here's my endorsement in the Democratic Attorney General primary: Peg Lautenschlager.

I spent a lot of time last year talking about this race, and very little doing so this year. Until the last week or so, the race has been kind of a sleeper, and I've been saving up what I have to say. But to recap:

I was never in favor of Kathleen Falk's getting into the race. Not because I don't like her or don't think that she'd do a good job--she is head, shoulders, and torso above the Republican competition--but because the only to challenge Peg is her DUI. Well, that, and she is not a big campaigner, which when it comes to AG I think could be a good thing. I cautioned that a high-profile primary could suck the life out other solid Democratic pick-up chances. And it didn't take long after Falk announced her candidacy before the ugly stories stared, and I was feeling pretty pessimistic.

However, things got quiet. For a long time, I was impressed by the way Falk kept the campaign on the issues, and Peg kept quietly doing her job. Even when there was a disagreement over whether to make first-time DUIs a felony, Falk didn't tie it directly to Peg. I was thinking I'd end up staying true to my initial instinct not to endorse at all.

And then things got ugly. You might say that Peg started it with a relatively negative ad on Falk's experience. (A later ad also challenged Falk's contributor list--and ad that had to be changed to be more accurate.) But the response--almost as if Falk had it in the can--was about the DUI. You can see the ad on YouTube through Fred's place.

As Tony Palmieri phrased it, it was the end to Falk's "wink and nod campaign." I don't remember where I read it, but perhaps the best description of last week's ad wars is that Peg went negative, but Falk went dirty.

And this is what I was afraid of.

One reason I endorsed Scot Ross is that Doug LaFollette refused to debate, fearing it would give ammunition to the Republicans. Falk and Peg have debated, but that's not where the negative ammo is going to come from.

Maybe, you might be thinking, it's good that our AG candidates are facing the tough fire now. Well, I don't know. But i would much rather see the passion, the TV time, and the press coverage go to, say, Jim Sullivan or Pat Kreitlow or John Gard's limpish personality.

In the end, I have to go back to what I've maintained all along: Peg Lautenschlager has been an excellent Attorney General, which has earned her tremendous respect and admiration and enorsements from all over the state. There is no reason--other than, perhaps, "electability"--to change course here. We should return Peg Lautenschlager to the job.

Wednesday Briefs

• Don't forget Drinking Liberally in Milwaukee tonight. I may sign autographs if you ask nicely.
  
• A propos to my long (sorry about that) piece yesterday about blogs and the "MSM," Chris Bowers suggests that, on the national level at least, there is no right-wing blogosphere anymore.
  
• Is this Peg's revenge on Doyle for his pushing Falk into the AG race? Jack Voight is also on the ballot this November, and may be looking for distance from Doyle as well.
  
• Those rosy studies showing that there are plenty of high-achieving, high-poverty schools? Bunk.
  
• I learned two things from this story about Bush's reaction to Feingold's call for censure. The most exciting is that Russ will be on "The Daily Show" tonight. The other is that Bush keeps lying:

  "I did notice that nobody from the Democratic Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program," Bush said at a news conference Tuesday. "You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it," Bush said. "They ought to stand up and say, 'The tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used.' They ought to take their message to the people and say, 'Vote for me. I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program.' "

  As I said the other day, no one believes we shouldn't surveil terrorists. Not even Ward Churchill is saying that (I Googled to be sure). A better answer might have been saying he was willing to defend his program in a full investigation. Instead, he chooses to lie and stonewall.