Letters to the editor

Dear Editor, As the time approaches for us to cast our votes on the Wisconsin Heights School District operational referendum, it is crucial that we arm ourselves with information. Before making any decisions, it is imperative that we conduct thorough research. One key aspect to consider is whether the administration-to-student and staff-to-student ratios in our district are in line with those of similar-sized districts. Are we utilizing our resources efficiently, or is there room for improvement in this regard? Furthermore, we must scrutinize the necessity of certain administrative positions within our district. Do we truly require a middle/high school principal, elementary principal, curriculum director, a dean of students, and an athletic director? Are these positions essential to the effective operation of our schools as separate positions, or could they be consolidated or redistributed to save money? Another pertinent question concerns the allocation of the ESSER funds by the district. Were these funds allocated responsibly and with foresight, or are taxpayers now being asked to cover expenses that the district knew would only be sustainable until the end of this fiscal year? Just as we prioritize needs over wants in our personal budgets, we must demand the same fiscal responsibility from our district. Have they made the necessary cuts and adjustments to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent judiciously? It is also crucial for every household to understand the potential impact of the proposed tax increase. How much will it affect your household budget? These are important considerations that should not be overlooked. I urge every voter to take an active role in this process. Ask questions of your school district, seek out information, and be an informed voter. Our community's future depends on it. Sincerely,   Sherry Moyer Mazomanie WI   Love Democracy? Vote "No" On The Constitutional Amendments Looks Can Be Deceiving. At first glance the two proposed constitutional amendments on the April 2 ballot appear to be reasonable measures to insure the integrity of elections. The first amendment would ban the use of private funds or donations in election administration. The second one would restrict the performance of tasks in the conduct of elections only to election officials designated by law. However, a deeper scrutiny of these amendments reveals that they actually are likely to make voting and the work of elections officials more difficult without doing anything to improve election security. In fact they could potentially aid in subverting elections.  What Lies Beneath The Surface. Yes, in the past, election officials have applied for private funds to make up for shortfalls due to inadequate governmental funding. In 2020 a grant from the non-profit, non-partisan Center for Tech and Civil Life (CTLC) helped cover the costs of administering elections during the COVID-19 pandemic. The funds were used to support such expenses as poll worker hazard pay, polling place rental, personal protective equipment (PPE) for poll workers, and equipment to process ballots and applications. There is no evidence that the use of such funds has compromised the integrity of elections in any way. However, if the legislature still imagines the use of such funds to be a problem, they have a simple solution available to them: adequately fund the administration of elections, thereby eliminating the need for outside funds. Inadequate funding results in longer lines at the polls and fewer poll locations. As for the second proposed amendment, Wisconsin statutes already provide extensive and rigorous requirements for "election officials," a category that includes election inspectors, greeters, tabulators, election registration officials, and special voting deputies. Wisconsin Statutes currently provide that only election officials appointed under the two statutory provisions governing the appointment of election officials may conduct an election. It is not clear how the second proposed amendment would enhance Wisconsin’s election laws. The Legislature has identified no specific need for this amendment, nor has it pointed to any shortcoming of the present statutory restrictions on who may serve as an election official. So What is Going on Here. One explanation is that the Republican majority in the legislature, tired of the governor's vetoing legislation that primarily increases their power and advances their agenda, is trying to legislate by constitutional amendments. Such a tactic undermines the checks and balances between the three branches of government, which includes a 2/3 super majority vote of the legislature to override a governor's veto of a proposed bill. However, the governor has no veto power over a constitutional  amendment. To appear on the ballot a constitutional amendment needs only a majority vote in two consecutive legislative sessions. Since the governor would veto any bills containing the provisions in the proposed amendments, it seems like the legislature is using the route of constitutional amendments to circumvent the governor's veto power. Another possible explanation for what is going on here is that intentionally or unintentionally (depending on your degree of cynicism) the design of the constitutional amendments on the ballot can serve to subvert the outcome of elections rather than safeguard them. For one thing, the mere appearance of these unnecessary amendments on the ballot suggests that our current laws do not adequately protect the integrity of our elections, undermining people's confidence in election results. Further, ambiguous wording in the amendments creates opportunities for extremely narrow interpretations. For example, if a community center doesn't charge for its use as a polling place, would this constitute an illegal private donation? Would the use of an expert to help design a ballot or the use of a vendor to repair a voting machine violate the law because they are not election officials. A politician who doesn't like the outcome of an election could use such extreme interpretations to cast doubt about the fairness of the election, fueling the paranoia of election deniers and conspiracy adherents. But don't just take my word on the importance of voting No on the constitutional amendments. For reasons similar to what I have presented, the following non-partisan organizations also oppose both amendments: the Wis. League of Women Voters, the Wis. ACLU, Common Cause of Wis, and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Thanks for taking the time to consider this perspective on the constitutional amendments.   Allen Pincus Barneveld   We have gotten our absentee ballots for the April 2 election, so it is time to make some decisions. Wisconsinites have two statewide questions for everyone to answer as well as school questions for some. I would not presume to advise on the school questions because that has been cruelly complicated by our current rules about school financing. But the two questions about election management are easy. The answer to both is a resounding “NO!” The questions are slickly written to seem sensible. But both are geared specifically and purposefully to lessen our control of our own election system. The sponsors of these questions are trying to grasp the very roots of the system to shape the elections--regardless of how we citizens vote. Municipal clerks and local residents have been running fair elections for decades and do not need or want these amendments. The League of Women Voters in Wisconsin is a well-respected bipartisan organization that has worked hard for decades to guarantee fair voting. They have issued a statement opposing the proposed changes, and have explained their reasoning. Look it up. They list what is wrong with the two questions individually, and - for both cases -say that if there were “issues” to deal with; they should be sorted by the legislators and the Governor, not permanently added to our constitution. An even clearer explanation is at Common Cause Wisconsin, a staid non-partisan, non-profit citizen’s lobby. Look that one up first. But if you don’t have time and your neighbors don’t have time; let’s just quote Nancy Reagan - “JUST SAY NO!”  And spread the word.   Peggy Peckham Arena   No No No No! Remember that and Vote No when the April 2nd election ballots ask if you would like to amend the State Constitution in regards to the voting process. The Republican-held legislature is trying to sneak one by Tony Evers’ veto pen.  A “yes” vote will basically bar our hard-working clerks from designating individuals to assist them in future election tasks and take away the potential for them to obtain [currently existing] non-partisan grant money to help run a smooth election. So vote “No” and while you are at it please  tell those GOP cronies to go jump in a Wisconsin lake with their good buddy Eric Hovde!   Gaila Olsen Village of Black Earth