Fascinating results from the bitter Wisconsin recall election in which Republican Governor Scott Walker defeated the effort by Democrats and organized labor to remove him from the office to which he was elected in 2010.
In 2010, Scott Walker was elected governor over his Democratic opponent Tom Barrett by a margin of 5.77 percent. Enmity against Governor Walker was triggered by his 2011budget repair bill which increased contributions of government employees to their pensions and health care plans, ended most collective bargaining rights for government workers, and ended the automatic deduction of union dues from the paychecks of government workers.
In this week’s recall election, Governor Walker increased his margin of victory over the same opponent to 6.9 percent. So all the controversy over the budget repair bill actually increased Governor Walker’s popularity, with a larger voter turnout for the recall election than in 2010.
Exit polls conducted for and published by the New York Times reported that Wisconsin’s recall voters still favored President Obama over challenger Mitt Romney by 51 percent to 44 percent. But of the 51 percent favoring President Obama, fully 18 percent reported voting for Governor Walker. Thus about 9 percent of recall voters were Obama supporters who voted to retain Scott Walker, and this exceeded his overall margin of victory in the recall election.
Put another way, it appears that Governor Walker was able to win the recall election only because of significant support he received from Obama supporters. What does that tell us?
I think it tells us that a significant number of Obama supporters share the concern of Republican voters over the broken political process by which elected officials trade future underfunded pension and health care benefits in exchange for votes and political support from unions representing government employees.
Most elected officials just want to get re-elected, and don’t worry about future budget problems that will have to be faced by future elected officials because of the insufficiently funded pension and health care promises that were made in exchange for union votes and support.
But the ticking time bomb of underfunded pension and health care obligations for government retirees eventually goes off when the economy contracts, overall government revenues decline, the needs of the poor and unemployed increase, both health care expenses and life expectancies exceed projections, and the return on investments misses projected targets. Money gets diverted from the poor, children, and the elderly to meet pension obligations. And critics point out that the benefits received by government retirees greatly exceed the benefits received by the private sector taxpayers who are paying for them.
Most private sector workers if they have retirement plans at all, now have defined contribution plans, where they receive in benefits only what they and their employers have set aside for them, which is subject to market risk. In contrast, most state and local government employees can qualify for defined benefit plans by which they are entitled to stated future benefits without limit and regardless of market fluctuation, often indexed for inflation. And private sector workers typically make larger contributions to their health care coverage than unionized government workers.
The same budget crisis felt in Wisconsin because of rising health care and pension benefits is being felt in other states and local governments all across America. Elected officials in most of those jurisdictions will try to kick the problem down the road, to be addressed only after they are out of office.
But perhaps Governor Walker’s recall victory in Wisconsin will encourage some of them to take the political risk of trying to limit future government obligations now.
Coincidentally, on the same day that Wisconsin voters decided to stick with the governor who has taken that risk, voters in the California cities of San Jose and San Diego approved by large margins ballot initiatives opposed by employee unions to reduce retirement benefits for city workers. The mayors of both cities described the reductions in city employee pensions as essential.
—–
© Copyright 2012 Jan Ting
Jan Ting is a Professor of Law at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law and a former Assistant Commissioner for Refugees, Asylum and Parole, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice. Jan can be reached at janting@temple.edu.
Loading ...
Supreme Court Encourages Illegal Immigration
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled against key parts of an Arizona law intended to deter illegal immigration in the state. As you can imagine, this ruling has wide-ranging effects for the ability of all states to fight against the tidal wave of illegal immigration locally.
The Supreme Court’s ruling means more illegal immigration tomorrow. For those trying to decide whether or not to enter our country illegally, the risks and costs have just gone down, and the potential benefits have just increased. It would be more intellectually coherent for Congress to repeal our current immigration laws and just welcome all who would like to come without numerical limitation. The current policy of maintaining numerical limits on the books, but not enforcing those limits (and now prohibiting most state enforcement of those limits) simply makes no sense.
This policy is a slap in the face for the millions of qualified immigrants now waiting outside the U.S. for their chance to immigrate legally. They look like fools, and their children will age out and not be allowed to immigrate with them if they ever get visas.
The court gave broad support to the Obama administration’s policy of prosecutorial discretion, or limited enforcement of U.S. immigration law. The court cited with approval the administration’s 2011 memo announcing a policy of prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement, basically limited to criminals and national security threats. The court noted, “a primary feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.” Prosecutorial discretion is what underlies the recent administration decision to give work authorization for illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. before age 16.
Most of Arizona’s efforts to deal with illegal immigration were struck down. Studies estimate that the unauthorized portion of Arizona’s population currently sits somewhere between 6 percent and 9 percent. One study cited by the court found that the 8.9 percent unauthorized portion of Arizona’s population was responsible for 21.8 percent of Arizona’s felony crimes. The message to other states: No matter how bad it gets for you, you won’t be allowed to do what Arizona tried.
The court preserved a narrow window for state action to restrict illegal immigration. As determined last year in Whiting v. Chamber of Commerce, states can use licensing power to revoke the business licenses of employers who hire illegal immigrants without checking work authorization using the automated E-Verify procedure. This licensing power is also what the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania has tried to use in its anti-illegal immigration ordinances.
Secondly, the court permitted to stand the portion of the Arizona statute requiring a determination of immigration status anytime a police officer makes a legal stop and has a reasonable suspicion that the stopped individual may be illegal. That provision also specified that anyone actually arrested should have an immigration status determination before release. The high court approved that provision only on condition that it not result in practice in prolonged detention. The racial profiling argument is a loser; if the government had made an attempt to argue this, it could have be used to strike federal immigration law provisions as well.
This procedure for a mandatory immigration status check upon reasonable suspicion after a legal stop is already standard operating procedure in many jurisdictions throughout the United States. Arizona put it in SB1070 because certain Arizona “sanctuary city” jurisdictions were instructing their police not to do status checks despite reasonable suspicion.
Chief Justice Roberts’s position in support of the majority opinion was surprising and curious. Justice Kennedy maintained his usual position as the key swing vote assigned to write the majority opinion, but if the Chief Justice had decided to vote along with his fellow Republican appointees, it would not have made a much of a difference. A 4-4 split, because Justice Kagen recused herself, would have left the lower court opinion in effect, striking all four of the challenged portions of SB1070.
Chief justices feel responsible for the image of the court as a whole and hate to have the court viewed as ineffective and its opinions without meaning. I suspect the Chief Justice offered to vote with the majority, creating a decisive 5-3 majority vote, provided the majority agreed to sustain at least one of the contested provisions of SB1070 requiring an immigration status check after a legal stop if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the individual is without legal status. And, of course, that is what the majority proceeded to do.
Jan Ting is a Professor of Law at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law and a former Assistant Commissioner for Refugees, Asylum and Parole, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice. Jan can be reached at janting@temple.edu.
Photo Credit: laura padgett (Creative Commons)