It's a wake-up call in more ways than one.
Time for some sh** you need to know.
Federal judges yesterday temporarily blocked Alabama's plan to use a new congressional map that could give Republicans an advantage in a key house race in the midterm election.
A three-judge panel in the state's long-running redistricting case issued the preliminary injunction that prevents the state, at least for now, from switching maps.
It requires Alabama to continue using the same court-ordered districts under which congressional representatives were elected in 2024, lawyers representing black voters in the state's
the redistricting case.
had sought the primary injunction arguing the same panel in 2023 found the state map was intentionally discriminatory against black voters.
This is good news, and I will say too, in South Carolina, the Senate has blocked
any
redistricting attempts as well.
So keep an eye on the southern states.
Also stuff you need to know, closer to home, a new Department of Natural Resources rule updates regulations for keeping and handling animals like frogs, snakes, and turtles, a process that
that state officials say will protect species but raise some concerns among reptile keepers.
These updates come after DNR undertook a comprehensive review of regulations for amphibians and reptiles, many of which had not been updated since the 1990s.
The department said it received feedback that previous rules were difficult to interpret and enforce and they wanted to bring Wisconsin more in line with other states.
Many of the rules stem from concerns about limiting reptile and amphibian diseases that are making their way into
to the country.
And can we all agree that the shirtless snake guy at any outdoor festival is the creepiest guy on the planet?
Yes, very much.
I will die on that hill.
There you go.
Staying outdoors in Wisconsin, Wisconsinites looking to take their all terrain or utility all.
They're all terrain or utility terrain vehicle out on the trails should be mindful of new statewide rules going into effect on June 1st under the new rules which take effect Monday.
Anyone operating a UTV must wear a seat belt.
The multi-passenger off-road vehicles also must meet new window tint restrictions similar to other passenger vehicles.
ATV or UTV operators are also barred from towing objects on trails or routes.
Operators towing a person on ice must limit their
speed to 10 miles an hour.
And in addition, it intentionally causing property damage with an ATV or UTV can result in a fine up to three times the cost of damage to the repair.
It also stipulates that an ATV or UTV operator who is involved in a crash has a duty to render aid to others involved in the incident.
And in our final headline here this morning, DNR has been very busy.
I was gonna say, we're very eco-friendly this morning.
We are, we are.
A lot of outdoor news.
Well, summer's coming, people are gonna be outdoors.
I was just gonna
say, it's Wisconsin, and we like our outdoor space, right?
Nina filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources after the agency rejected key aspects of the city's development plan for Arrowhead Park, including a restaurant.
The 30-acre park at the south end of Little Bake Butte Day
Mort's is a capped landfill containing paper sludge contaminated with PCBs, which are considered a probable human carcinogen.
The property was deeded to the city by the Wisconsin legislature in 1951 for a public purpose.
The DNR is responsible for approving any excavation or construction at the landfill.
According to this lawsuit, the DNR has asserted that the construction and operation of a welcome center that has concessions, a restaurant, a museum,
an observation deck, bathrooms, or park information center would constitute a privatization of the lake bed and would not be permitted.
Kind of sounds like before I want any of those things, I want somebody to check the land, do a little cleanup, and make
sure there's no
PCBs.
I don't want to be eating a snack on some paper sludge.
No, thank you.
No, no.
All right, well, that's some stories, but now let's get to the big story.
Four out of five
respondents to a new statewide poll said they backed a failed bipartisan deal struck earlier this month between the Democratic governor, Evers, and two legislative Republicans, uh, Voss and Lemahue, that would have spent $1.8 billion of the state's projected surplus to send rebates to taxpayers, reduce property taxes, and funnel more state funds into schools.
This, this came two weeks ago.
It'll be a week ago Monday.
It was dead by a week by last week at this time Yeah, people immediately came out against this proposed bill For a number of reasons we kept hearing because we kept hearing all was all gonna come from the surplus right now that surplus They left out the part where it was a projected sir.
We didn't have the money sitting right we kind of thought we were gonna get the money and then
Oh my goodness, found out that after the deal was analyzed, after it already died, the fiscal, the legislative fiscal bureau looked at it and said, uh, yeah, well, with the state spending the way it is now, and this new bill, it would have cost the state nearly $3.5 billion over the next four years.
So all the good vibes that some people had, but still people are saying, no, we want, we are, we want.
Schools funded we wanted a little money back because people thinking People think short-term and I said this when it came out sometimes a short-term win is enough while you fight for the long-term goals.
Yeah
And this bill, I think, was probably doomed from the beginning, mostly because Democrats felt like, and Republicans alike, felt like it had been done under closed doors, behind closed doors, in the cloak of night kind of thing, and nobody really had any say in what was actually happening.
Yeah, but all right, can we talk about that point for one second?
Because I don't think backroom deals are the way to go, but I think at some point,
something has to be done because they had been debating this stuff both sides for so long.
All right, nobody wants to compromise.
Yes, we know.
Evers, Voslemé, none of them are running for real extra.
They're all done.
So maybe they wanted this as part of their, at least there was something that came out of it.
So I don't care if it got done in the back room.
You still got to vote on it.
Don't be a petulant little baby.
And sometimes you got to get something
compromise to get out and vote on it and bring it to light and start a conversation.
It turns out, according to this new Marquette poll, though, that 80% of people who responded, including 77% of Republicans, 81% of independents, and 82% of Democrats, said that the deal should have passed.
Now, here's what
I am going
to say about this, though.
This particular poll
was done between May 20th and May 21st.
The story broke on May 21st that this particular bill would have actually ended up putting the Wisconsin state government in the red.
So that is information that perhaps people didn't know.
Would it have
changed minds?
You know, that's my question.
It changed.
That part of it did change my mind on the whole scope of it.
My stance on the, I don't care, you know, them whining about the backroom deal.
I don't care.
I wanted to see some compromise.
I wanted to see something done.
But yes, that number would have been helpful at the very beginning.
Because I think it would have cemented more people on the side of the opposition to say, all right, I see what, because the arguments that the opposition made,
were not this.
This wasn't their argument.
They were making arguments about, well, this is only short-term short-term.
Okay, that to me is not an argument.
This
is an argument.
The numbers we're referring to come from a legislative fiscal bureau analysis.
If the deal would have passed, it would have actually turned a more than $2 billion surplus into more than $2.9 billion deficit by the summer of 2029.
That's assuming that
that there were no other changes in revenue or spending.
But I think that's just it.
If you were somebody who answered this poll, right, and you had the initial information in front of you, and you're somebody who's looking at your property taxes going, oh my gosh, this would have actually helped me, then you get that information, would it have changed how you responded to the poll?
That was the first thing that popped into my head when I was reading this last
night.
Jamie posed the question.
I think it's a good one.
Let's hear from you.
Did that fiscal report change how you felt about this proposal, or did it just cement your objections to it?
Now, I think one thing that wouldn't have changed is this other part, because in the poll, people were asked if the deal should be passed now, or if lawmakers should revisit the proposal next season.
69% of the rep...
respondents supported passing the deal immediately 21 said it would better delay the action until next year so I guess that does bolster what we're saying about the if there was the the fiscal part then changes would change if that would change it to 68% of Republicans 67% of independent 74% of Democrats said they would prefer to see the deal pass now rather than next year
that was another that was another big talking point and one point that I made because you can't guarantee if you're a Democrat you couldn't guarantee that right your party is going to be in power that you're going to win the trifecta and everything's going to be pie in the sky like you think and if you're a Republican you don't know if you don't if you don't make some compromise
You could be given away the store come November.
Right.
And I think for a lot of people in Wisconsin, right, the property tax reform and the property tax relief question looms large.
Additional school funding also looms large because, you know, the school districts are continually facing budget pressure and then these referendums continually end up on ballots year after year after year.
But I think the entire conversation raises serious questions about long term state.
finances and whether Wisconsin alone can just afford any sort of major spending commitments if the economy slows down or even if our revenue declines.
And the fact that we are looking at a possible complete change of leadership from top to bottom in the state
That's also going to loom large because we know that the way that a Republican governor versus a Democratic governor handles this situation is going to be vastly different.
It's going to be vastly different.
And I don't know.
There has to be some sort of compromise.
And if you're somebody who's just hedging your bets, waiting for your party to take control, I think that's a bad plan.
I
think it's a
really bad plan.
No, you never count your chickens, especially when it comes to elections.
Why would you assume that, oh yeah, all signs point to we're going to win them all?
That's never the way.
Only though, about half the people who responded to this said this is going to be a big deal.
They said, well, we'll think about it.
It's okay.
It's somewhat important for the next election.
So yeah, people are outraged now, but in another few months, there's going to be something else to be outraged about.
Of course.
A week later, there was something else to be outraged about.
So a quarter of the respondents said this is going to be very, very important to how they decide to vote in November.
And then 20, 21% said about the same amount.
It's not important.
Do
you think, as we go forward with the gubernatorial election and a democratic gubernatorial primary, do you think that this will stay on the top of people's minds?
Is this going to be a major issue when people are looking at who the next governor of Wisconsin should be?
I would say not this bill, not this proposal in particular, but of course, funding and property taxes are, yeah, if you're a...
gubernatorial candidate, and these are not the top two things.
You know, Tom Tiffany is already touting all this law and order.
Law and order, okay, duh.
Everybody, I don't care who you are.
And I'm sorry to put it so bluntly and simply, but it is simple.
Who does it?
Who's against law and order?
Shut up.
Everybody knows.
We want to know how we're going to afford to send our kids to school and why our house is so expensive.
That's what, address that.
and you can sway a lot of different voters.
