Month: December 2023

House Republicans are inching toward trying to impeach Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Posted on by Congress

House Republicans are preparing to take a significant step toward impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas early next year.

Homeland Security Committee Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) said Friday in a statement that his panel is “initiating impeachment proceedings against Secretary Mayorkas early in the new year.”

The revival of the Mayorkas impeachment effort has flown under the radar in recent weeks as Republicans focused on rallying behind formalizing their impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

But Green has long flirted with moving toward impeachment. He told POLITICO last week that his panel was going to circle back to articles of impeachment early next year and added during a recent interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” that he’ll hold hearings in January as well as a markup. (Committee spokespeople didn’t respond to a question on Friday about timing of the markup.)

Support for impeaching Mayorkas is growing within the House GOP conference, but it’s not clear that they have the votes — at least not yet.

Eight Republicans previously helped Democrats punt on articles of impeachment against the DHS chief. But some of those holdouts made it clear their opposition was based more on procedural reasons and at least one — Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) — has flipped.

But there are others within the conference worth watching — namely, Republicans in Biden-won districts. Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) is working behind the scenes to try to get moderate members on board.

The impeachment effort comes as Mayorkas plays a central role in the Senate-led talks on a deal that would combine stricter border security policies with new foreign aid. Across the Capitol, some Senate Republicans are critical of Mayorkas but skeptical of impeaching him, arguing that the House GOP criticism comes down more to policy disagreements.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, Gonzales and other top Republicans are also expected to take a trip to the border early next month.

Beyond disputing Republicans on the specifics of border policy, the administration and Democrats have accused Green of driving his months-long investigation toward a predetermined outcome of impeachment.

“The House majority is wasting valuable time and taxpayer dollars pursuing a baseless political exercise that has been rejected by members of both parties and already failed on a bipartisan vote," a DHS spokesperson said in a statement. "There is no valid basis to impeach Secretary Mayorkas."

Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.), the top Democrat on Green’s panel, sounded a similar note after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said she had cut a deal with leadership and the chair to pursue impeachment in the committee. At the time, Thompson accused the committee investigation of being a “shell game” to end up at a “pre-determined, evidence-free impeachment.”

Posted in Uncategorized

Wisconsin Supreme Court orders new legislative maps in redistricting case brought by Democrats

Posted on by Associated Press

The liberal-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned Republican-drawn legislative maps on Friday and ordered that new district boundary lines be drawn as Democrats had urged in a redistricting case they hope will weaken GOP majorities.

The ruling comes less than a year before the 2024 election in a battleground state where four of the six past presidential elections have been decided by fewer than 23,000 votes, and Republicans have built large majorities in the Legislature under maps they drew over a decade ago.

The court ruled 4-3 in favor of Democrats who argued that the legislative maps are unconstitutional because districts drawn aren't contiguous. They also argued that the Supreme Court violated the separation of powers doctrine.

“Because the current state legislative districts contain separate, detached territory and therefore violate the constitution’s contiguity requirements, we enjoin the Wisconsin Elections Commission from using the current legislative maps in future elections,” Justice Jill Karofksy wrote for the majority.

The court said it will proceed with adopting remedial maps in time for the 2024 election unless the Republican-controlled Legislature can pass maps that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers will sign. Evers vetoed the current maps.

The lawsuit was filed a day after the court's majority flipped to 4-3 liberal control in August. That's when Justice Janet Protasiewicz joined the court after her April election victory.

Protasiewicz called the GOP-drawn maps “unfair” and “rigged” during her campaign, leading Republicans to threaten to impeach her before she had even heard a case. She sided with the other liberal justices in striking down the current maps.

Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, who had threatened impeachment the loudest, backed off on Wednesday and said even if she ruled in favor of throwing out the maps, impeachment was “super unlikely.”

She joined with Karosfky and justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Rebecca Dallet in the majority. Conservative justices Annette Ziegler, Rebecca Bradley and Brian Hagedorn dissented.

The ruling comes one month after the court heard oral arguments in the case in November. The state elections commission has said maps must be in place by March 15 if the new districts are to be in play for the 2024 election.

Democrats argued for having all 132 lawmakers stand for election under the new maps, including half of the members of the state Senate who are midway through their four-year terms. The Legislature argued that no new maps should be enacted any sooner than the 2026 election.

Democrats argued in Wisconsin that the majority of current legislative districts — 54 out of 99 in the Assembly and 21 out of 33 in the Senate — violate the state constitution’s contiguity requirement.

Wisconsin’s redistricting laws, backed up by state and federal court rulings over the past 50 years, have permitted districts under certain circumstances to be noncontiguous, attorneys for the Legislature argued. Even if the court decided to address the issue, it could only affect alleged areas where districts aren’t contiguous and not upend existing district lines, Republicans argued.

Democrats also argued that the Supreme Court violated the separation of powers doctrine when it adopted the Republican-drawn map that Evers had previously vetoed, “improperly seizing powers for itself the Constitution assigns to other branches.”

The legislative electoral maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011 cemented the party’s majorities, which now stand at 64-35 in the Assembly and a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate.

Since taking the majority in 2011, Republicans have enacted a wide range of conservative priorities. They have all but eliminated collective bargaining for public workers, and since 2019 they’ve been a block on Evers’ agenda, firing Evers appointees and threatening impeachment of Protasiewicz and the state’s elections leader.

Republicans are also just two seats short of a supermajority that would allow them to overturn Evers’ vetoes.

Litigation is ongoing in more than dozen states over U.S. House and state legislative districts enacted after the 2020 census.

Supreme Court refuses to rule quickly on whether Trump can be prosecuted

Posted on by Associated Press

The Supreme Court said Friday that it will not immediately take up a plea by special counsel Jack Smith to rule on whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted for his actions to overturn the 2020 election results.

The issue will now be decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has signaled it will act quickly to decide the case. Special counsel Jack Smith had cautioned that even a rapid appellate decision might not get to the Supreme Court in time for review and final word before the court’s traditional summer break.

Smith had pressed the Supreme Court to intervene over concerns that the legal fight over the issue could delay the start of Trump’s trial, now scheduled for March 4, beyond next year’s presidential election.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has put the case on hold while Trump pursues his claim in higher courts that he is immune from prosecution. Chutkan raised the possibility of keeping the March date if the case promptly returns to her court.

She already has rejected the Trump team’s arguments that an ex-president could not be prosecuted over acts that fall within the official duties of the job.

“Former presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” Chutkan wrote in her Dec. 1 ruling. “Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”

The Supreme Court separately has agreed to hear a case over the charge of obstruction of an official proceeding that has been brought against Trump as well as more than 300 of his supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

In the immunity case, Smith had tried to persuade the justices to take up the matter directly, bypassing the appeals court.

“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin,” prosecutors wrote.

Underscoring the urgency for prosecutors in securing a quick resolution that can push the case forward, Smith and his team wrote: “It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected.”

Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president. Though there’s no such bar against prosecution for a former commander in chief, lawyers for Trump say that he cannot be charged for actions that fell within his official duties as president — a claim that prosecutors have vigorously rejected.

Trump faces charges accusing him of working to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden before the violent riot by his supporters at the U.S. Capitol. He has denied any wrongdoing.

The high court still could act quickly once the appeals court issues its decision. A Supreme Court case usually lasts several months, but on rare occasions, the justices shift into high gear.

Nearly 50 years ago, the justices acted within two months of being asked to force President Richard Nixon to turn over Oval Office recordings in the Watergate scandal. The tapes were then used later in 1974 in the corruption prosecutions of Nixon’s former aides.

It took the high court just a few days to effectively decide the 2000 presidential election for Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore.

Campaign Action

Democrat Dean Phillips attacks Biden for trying to upend traditional primary election process

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

President Biden’s 2024 Democrat primary challenger is going after him for his opposition to New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status.

Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., released a new campaign ad that targets Biden for supporting a bid to hold the Democrats’ first primary election in South Carolina.

"For over a century, New Hampshire has held the first-in-the-nation primary, and Granite Staters have faithfully carried out that grave responsibility, propelling the candidacies of some and ending the candidacies of others," a voiceover says in the one-minute video. "Now, Joe Biden has ordered New Hampshire to step aside."

DEAN PHILLIPS CALLS BIDEN POSSIBLY ‘UNELECTABLE’ IN 2024 AFTER GOP IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

"Congressman Dean Phillips is meeting with New Hampshire voters in diners, on street corners and at taverns, the way it's always been done."

New Hampshire officials announced last month that they would not heed the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) request to cede its first-state privilege to South Carolina.

PHILLIPS TARGETS BIDEN, FELLOW DEMOCRATS OVER BORDER POLICIES AS HE LAUNCHES PRIMARY CHALLENGE AGAINST PRESIDENT

The president’s reelection campaign also has not filed to be on the New Hampshire ballot, which could further complicate things for him there.

"In today's society, it seems that we're quick to eliminate traditions and ignore them," New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan said at press conference in November. 

South Carolina had set its primary for Feb. 3 after the DNC approved a proposal for it to hold the first 2024 Democrat race. But New Hampshire set its primary for Jan. 23, with officials citing state law mandating that the Granite State be first.

WHY DEAN PHILLIPS IS SCOLDING FELLOW DEMOCRATS

Biden wrote to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee last year to support the calendar overhaul.

"For decades, Black votes in particular have been the backbone of the Democratic Party but have been pushed to the back of the early primary process," he wrote, referencing the state’s sizable Black population.

Notably, Biden’s commanding victory in the 2020 South Carolina primary was widely credited for turning his then-flailing presidential campaign around.

Fox News Digital reached out to Biden’s 2024 campaign about the advertisement but did not immediately hear back.

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

Former prosecutor accused of limiting questions about Joe Biden denies politics played a role in Hunter probe

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: The former assistant U.S. attorney who allegedly worked to ‘limit’ questions about Joe Biden denied that politics played a role in the Hunter Biden investigation during her interview at the House Judiciary Committee, according to a transcript reviewed by Fox News Digital. 

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf, though, testified that she would "not be permitted to answer most of the questions you have for me" due to the ongoing nature of the federal criminal investigation into the first son. 

HUNTER BIDEN INVESTIGATORS LIMITED QUESTIONS ABOUT 'DAD,' 'BIG GUY' DESPITE FBI, IRS OBJECTIONS: WHISTLEBLOWER

Wolf, who recently left the Justice Department—a decision that "long predated" allegations against her, was subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee to appear for a deposition. 

Wolf appeared before the House Judiciary Committee last week for a voluntary transcribed interview after the Justice Department negotiated terms with the panel. 

Fox News Digital reviewed a transcript of her interview Thursday night. 

After her interview, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Wolf "refused to answer most of our questions." 

"She refused to answer based on instructions she was given from the Justice Department," Jordan said.

IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley, who led the IRS’ portion of the Hunter Biden probe, and Joseph Ziegler, a special agent within the IRS’ Criminal Investigation Division, alleged political influence surrounding prosecutorial decisions throughout the Hunter Biden investigation, which began in 2018.

Shapley alleged that Wolf sought to block investigators from asking questions related to President Biden throughout the years-long federal investigation into his son, Hunter Biden.

But during her interview, Wolf testified that "at no time did politics play a role in or in any way impact my work as a federal prosecutor." 

Wolf also said that prosecutorial decisions were "never made in a vacuum and were always guided by principles of justice and fairness." 

JORDAN SAYS FORMER PROSECUTOR WHO ALLEGEDLY SCUTTLED HUNTER INVESTIGATION 'REFUSED' TO ANSWER QUESTIONS

"My voluntary appearance here today is not without an overwhelming feeling of frustration and disappointment because as much as I would invite the opportunity to explain the decisions made and accurately describe the actions taken, I will not be permitted to answer most of the questions you have for me," Wolf said. "It should come as no surprise to the committee that as a former DOJ employee, I am significantly constrained by and must strictly adhere to the authorization provided by the Department of Justice, as well as those obligations independently imposed by the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, including rule 6e, and the relevant laws governing disclosure of tax information." 

Wolf explained that, "in light of the ongoing nature of the investigation," she was "legally obligated at this time to largely remain silent as to those allegations, beyond stating the truth, which is, at all times while serving as an AUSA, I acted consistently with the Justice Manual, DOJ policy directives, and my statutory legal and ethical obligations." 

"I followed the facts where they led and made decisions in the best interests of the investigation," Wolf said. "This includes, but is by no means limited to, policies and rules governing politically sensitive investigations, election year sensitivities, attorney search warrants, search warrant filter requirements, and professional conduct rules barring contact with represented parties." 

But when faced with specific questions by investigators, Wolf repeatedly said she could not answer or speak to "particulars or details about anything" relating to the ongoing Hunter Biden probe, led by now-Special Counsel David Weiss, and repeatedly said she was "not authorized" to discuss the matter. 

Shapley alleged earlier this year that Wolf worked to "limit" questioning related to President Biden and apparent references to Biden as "dad" or "the big guy."

But according to a Fox News Digital review of the transcript, investigators did not ask her about that specific allegation. 

Shapley and Ziegler also alleged that in October 2020, Wolf reviewed an affidavit for a search warrant of Hunter Biden’s residence and "agreed that probable cause had been achieved." However, Shapley said Wolf ultimately would not allow a physical search warrant on the president’s son.

Shapley said Wolf determined there was "enough probable cause for the physical search warrant there, but the question was whether the juice was worth the squeeze."

Wolf allegedly said that "optics were a driving factor in the decision on whether to execute a search warrant," Shapley said, adding that Wolf agreed that "a lot of evidence in our investigation would be found in the guest house of former Vice President Biden, but said there is no way we will get that approved."

LESLEY WOLF, PROSECUTOR ACCUSED OF WORKING TO 'LIMIT' QUESTIONS ABOUT 'BIG GUY' IN HUNTER PROBE, OUT AT DOJ

Wolf also allegedly tipped off Hunter Biden’s legal team ahead of a planned search of his storage unit.

During her interview, Wolf did acknowledge that "Political Figure 1"--a term used in several communications between Hunter Biden investigators--was, in fact, a reference to then-Vice President Joe Biden. 

Wolf was asked about an email exchange with FBI Special Agent Joshua Wilson, in which she stated: "There should be nothing about political figure 1 in here." 

Wolf said "Political Figure 1" is "described as former Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., now President Biden," but would not specifically elaborate on why she gave that directive. 

Wolf was asked: "To the extent you didn't--you asked the agents to take out political figure 1, there was no political motivation in requesting that?" 

"I refer you back to my opening statement where I said at no time there was politics playing a role in those decisions." 

Wolf's testimony came as part of the House impeachment inquiry against President Biden, which was formalized last week. 

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo.; Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio; and Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., are leading the investigation as the House gathers evidence and considers whether to draft articles of impeachment against President Biden.

The committees are investigating the alleged politicization of the federal probe into Hunter Biden. They are also investigating the Biden family’s foreign business dealings and whether the president was involved or benefited directly from those ventures.

President Biden has repeatedly denied having any involvement in his son’s business dealings.

Hunter Biden was subpoenaed as part of the inquiry as well but defied his subpoena to appear for a deposition at the House Oversight Committee last week. Instead, he made a public statement on Capitol Hill, blasting the Republican impeachment inquiry and saying his father was "not financially involved" in his business dealings.

Comer and Jordan have threatened to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress.

Hunter Biden's public statement Wednesday came just days after he was charged out of Special Counsel David Weiss' investigation.

Weiss alleged Hunter Biden was engaged in a "four-year scheme" when the president's son did not pay his federal income taxes from January 2017 to October 2020 while also filing false tax reports. Weiss filed the charges in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Weiss also indicted Hunter Biden on federal gun charges in Delaware. The president's son pleaded not guilty, and his attorneys are working to dismiss the charges altogether. 

Wisconsin GOP Assembly leader backs off threat to impeach Supreme Court judge over redistricting

Posted on by Charles Jay

Almost immediately after Janet Protasiewicz was elected to Wisconsin’s Supreme Court last April, flipping it to a liberal majority, Republican leaders threatened to impeach her if she didn’t recuse herself from a case challenging the state’s heavily gerrymandered electoral maps. This was because after being seated on the court in August, Protasiewicz refused to recuse herself from the Democratic-backed lawsuit seeking to throw out Republican-drawn electoral maps, drawing even more impeachment threats from Republicans.

Protasiewicz’s victory had resulted in a 4-3 liberal majority on the court, ending a 15-year period in which conservative justices held control. But now faced with intense backlash, Robin Vos, the Republican leader of Wisconsin’s Assembly who threatened possible impeachment of Protasiewicz in August, has pivoted and now says that such a move is “super unlikely,” The Associated Press reported.

RELATED STORY: Former Wisconsin GOP Attorney General Brad Schimel is running for the state Supreme Court

The AP wrote:

When asked in an interview Wednesday if he would move to impeach Protasiewicz if she orders new maps to be drawn, Vos said, “I think it’s very unlikely.”

“It’s one of the tools that we have in our toolbox that we could use at any time,” Vos said of impeachment. “Is it going to be used? I think it’s super unlikely.”

However, Vos refused to rule it out.

“We don’t know what could happen, right?” he said. “There could be a scandal where something occurs. I don’t know.”

Wisconsin’s Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler posted this reaction on X, formerly known as Twitter:

The Wisconsin GOP has made official what’s long been clear: they’ve pulled back the impeachment threat. Why did this happen? Because you rose up in outrage and made clear that such an abuse of the constitution would be politically catastrophic—for them. https://t.co/f20bV6dd9c

— Ben Wikler (@benwikler) December 21, 2023

In September, Wikler announced that the state Democratic Party was launching a $4 million effort to to pressure Republicans to back down from impeaching Protasiewicz. At the time he said the Republicans were “holding a political nuclear football” and engaging in “political extortion.”

According to Associated Press analysis, Wisconsin’s Assembly districts rank among the most gerrymandered in the U.S., with Republicans routinely winning far more seats than would be expected based on their average share of the vote in statewide elections. Joe Biden flipped Wisconsin in the 2020 presidential election, defeating Donald Trump by a narrow margin of 49.6% to 48.9%, a difference of 20,000 votes. In April 2023, with abortion rights a key issue, Protasiewicz defeated Republican Dan Kelly by 55.5% to 45.5%, a margin of nearly 200,000 votes.

Yet, as the AP pointed out, the legislative electoral maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011 cemented the party’s majorities. Republicans now control the Assembly by a 64-35 margin, and hold a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate. Last year, the GOP approved maps that were similar to the existing ones.

In October, the state Supreme Court agreed to hear the legal challenge to the Republican-drawn maps. Election lawyer Marc Elias’ group, Democracy Docket, wrote on its website:

The petitioners in Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission allege that the Wisconsin state Assembly and Senate maps are extreme partisan gerrymanders that unduly favor Republicans in violation of the state constitution.

The petition notes that for the past two decades, Wisconsin’s legislative plans have been among the most gerrymandered in the country: “In 2012, Republicans won 48.6% of the statewide vote, which yielded a remarkable 60 assembly seats. … When Democrats received roughly the same vote share, they carried 36 assembly seats. … From the 2012 through the 2020 elections, Republicans never fell below 60 seats—winning up to 64, or nearly two-thirds of the seats. In 2018, Republicans won 63 seats with just 44.8% of the vote.”  

Last month, the state Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the redistricting lawsuit and is expected to issue its decision by early 2024. The plaintiffs are asking that all 132 state lawmakers be required to stand for election in 2024 under newly redrawn maps. Under current law, all Wisconsin Assembly members and about half the state Senate are up for election next year.

The wheels came off the Republicans’ threat to impeach Protasiewicz in October. That’s when two of three former conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court justices asked by Vos to investigate the possibility of impeachment told the Assembly leader it was not warranted. Former Justice David Prosser wrote to Vos:

“To sum up my views, there should be no effort to impeach Justice Protasiewicz on anything we know now. Impeachment is so serious, severe, and rare that it should not be considered unless the subject has committed a crime, or the subject has committed indisputable ‘corrupt conduct’ while ‘in office.’”

Article VII of the Wisconsin Constitution reserves impeachment for “corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors.”

The Republicans’ threats to Protasiewicz were based on political statements that she made while campaigning for the seat in which she referred to the legislative maps as “rigged.” Republicans claimed that this constituted a predetermination of how she would rule on a case challenging the maps. In early October, Protasiewicz rejected calls from Republican justices to recuse herself from redistricting cases. The AP reported:

Protasiewicz said that while stating her opinion about the maps during the campaign, she never made a promise or pledge about how she would rule on the cases.

“I will set aside my opinions and decide cases based on the law,” she wrote. “There will surely be many cases in which I reach results that I personally dislike. That is what it means to be a judge.”

Democracy Docket also said that Republican lawmakers also took issue with the financial contributions made by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin to her campaign. However, Jay Heck, director of the nonpartisan group Common Cause of Wisconsin called the Republicans’ “selected outrage” hypocritical because all but one of the seven sitting justices had accepted contributions from a political party.

The prospect of actually removing Protasiewicz from the court also became a less attractive option. That’s because if she were impeached by the Assembly and convicted by the Senate, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers would now get to name her replacement rather than have to call a special election, which would have been required if she had been removed prior to Dec. 1, the AP reported.

And it’s good news for abortion rights activists that Protasiewicz remains in place to keep the liberal 4-3 majority intact. On Tuesday, a Republican district attorney appealed a court ruling that determined that an 1849 Wisconsin law does not ban abortions, the AP reported. That decision cleared the way for abortions to resume in the state. The appeal filed by Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski is likely to ultimately be decided by the state Supreme Court. And Protasiewicz is a supporter of abortion rights.

RELATED STORY: Wisconsin Supreme Court hearing arguments on redistricting that could result in new maps for 2024

Campaign Action

Wisconsin GOP Assembly leader backs off threat to impeach Supreme Court judge over redistricting

Posted on by Charles Jay

Almost immediately after Janet Protasiewicz was elected to Wisconsin’s Supreme Court last April, flipping it to a liberal majority, Republican leaders threatened to impeach her if she didn’t recuse herself from a case challenging the state’s heavily gerrymandered electoral maps. This was because after being seated on the court in August, Protasiewicz refused to recuse herself from the Democratic-backed lawsuit seeking to throw out Republican-drawn electoral maps, drawing even more impeachment threats from Republicans.

Protasiewicz’s victory had resulted in a 4-3 liberal majority on the court, ending a 15-year period in which conservative justices held control. But now faced with intense backlash, Robin Vos, the Republican leader of Wisconsin’s Assembly who threatened possible impeachment of Protasiewicz in August, has pivoted and now says that such a move is “super unlikely,” The Associated Press reported.

RELATED STORY: Former Wisconsin GOP Attorney General Brad Schimel is running for the state Supreme Court

The AP wrote:

When asked in an interview Wednesday if he would move to impeach Protasiewicz if she orders new maps to be drawn, Vos said, “I think it’s very unlikely.”

“It’s one of the tools that we have in our toolbox that we could use at any time,” Vos said of impeachment. “Is it going to be used? I think it’s super unlikely.”

However, Vos refused to rule it out.

“We don’t know what could happen, right?” he said. “There could be a scandal where something occurs. I don’t know.”

Wisconsin’s Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler posted this reaction on X, formerly known as Twitter:

The Wisconsin GOP has made official what’s long been clear: they’ve pulled back the impeachment threat. Why did this happen? Because you rose up in outrage and made clear that such an abuse of the constitution would be politically catastrophic—for them. https://t.co/f20bV6dd9c

— Ben Wikler (@benwikler) December 21, 2023

In September, Wikler announced that the state Democratic Party was launching a $4 million effort to to pressure Republicans to back down from impeaching Protasiewicz. At the time he said the Republicans were “holding a political nuclear football” and engaging in “political extortion.”

According to Associated Press analysis, Wisconsin’s Assembly districts rank among the most gerrymandered in the U.S., with Republicans routinely winning far more seats than would be expected based on their average share of the vote in statewide elections. Joe Biden flipped Wisconsin in the 2020 presidential election, defeating Donald Trump by a narrow margin of 49.6% to 48.9%, a difference of 20,000 votes. In April 2023, with abortion rights a key issue, Protasiewicz defeated Republican Dan Kelly by 55.5% to 45.5%, a margin of nearly 200,000 votes.

Yet, as the AP pointed out, the legislative electoral maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011 cemented the party’s majorities. Republicans now control the Assembly by a 64-35 margin, and hold a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate. Last year, the GOP approved maps that were similar to the existing ones.

In October, the state Supreme Court agreed to hear the legal challenge to the Republican-drawn maps. Election lawyer Marc Elias’ group, Democracy Docket, wrote on its website:

The petitioners in Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission allege that the Wisconsin state Assembly and Senate maps are extreme partisan gerrymanders that unduly favor Republicans in violation of the state constitution.

The petition notes that for the past two decades, Wisconsin’s legislative plans have been among the most gerrymandered in the country: “In 2012, Republicans won 48.6% of the statewide vote, which yielded a remarkable 60 assembly seats. … When Democrats received roughly the same vote share, they carried 36 assembly seats. … From the 2012 through the 2020 elections, Republicans never fell below 60 seats—winning up to 64, or nearly two-thirds of the seats. In 2018, Republicans won 63 seats with just 44.8% of the vote.”  

Last month, the state Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the redistricting lawsuit and is expected to issue its decision by early 2024. The plaintiffs are asking that all 132 state lawmakers be required to stand for election in 2024 under newly redrawn maps. Under current law, all Wisconsin Assembly members and about half the state Senate are up for election next year.

The wheels came off the Republicans’ threat to impeach Protasiewicz in October. That’s when two of three former conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court justices asked by Vos to investigate the possibility of impeachment told the Assembly leader it was not warranted. Former Justice David Prosser wrote to Vos:

“To sum up my views, there should be no effort to impeach Justice Protasiewicz on anything we know now. Impeachment is so serious, severe, and rare that it should not be considered unless the subject has committed a crime, or the subject has committed indisputable ‘corrupt conduct’ while ‘in office.’”

Article VII of the Wisconsin Constitution reserves impeachment for “corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors.”

The Republicans’ threats to Protasiewicz were based on political statements that she made while campaigning for the seat in which she referred to the legislative maps as “rigged.” Republicans claimed that this constituted a predetermination of how she would rule on a case challenging the maps. In early October, Protasiewicz rejected calls from Republican justices to recuse herself from redistricting cases. The AP reported:

Protasiewicz said that while stating her opinion about the maps during the campaign, she never made a promise or pledge about how she would rule on the cases.

“I will set aside my opinions and decide cases based on the law,” she wrote. “There will surely be many cases in which I reach results that I personally dislike. That is what it means to be a judge.”

Democracy Docket also said that Republican lawmakers also took issue with the financial contributions made by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin to her campaign. However, Jay Heck, director of the nonpartisan group Common Cause of Wisconsin called the Republicans’ “selected outrage” hypocritical because all but one of the seven sitting justices had accepted contributions from a political party.

The prospect of actually removing Protasiewicz from the court also became a less attractive option. That’s because if she were impeached by the Assembly and convicted by the Senate, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers would now get to name her replacement rather than have to call a special election, which would have been required if she had been removed prior to Dec. 1, the AP reported.

And it’s good news for abortion rights activists that Protasiewicz remains in place to keep the liberal 4-3 majority intact. On Tuesday, a Republican district attorney appealed a court ruling that determined that an 1849 Wisconsin law does not ban abortions, the AP reported. That decision cleared the way for abortions to resume in the state. The appeal filed by Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski is likely to ultimately be decided by the state Supreme Court. And Protasiewicz is a supporter of abortion rights.

RELATED STORY: Wisconsin Supreme Court hearing arguments on redistricting that could result in new maps for 2024

Campaign Action

Ken Paxton and aides ordered to answer questions under oath in whistleblower case

Posted on by Texas Tribune

By Patrick Svitek 

The Texas Tribune

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

A Travis County district judge has ordered Attorney General Ken Paxton and three top aides to sit for depositions in the 3-year-old whistleblower lawsuit against him.

At a hearing Wednesday in Austin, Judge Jan Soifer granted the whistleblowers’ motion to compel the depositions of Paxton; Brent Webster, the first assistant attorney general; Lesley French Henneke, chief of staff at the agency; and Michelle Smith, Paxton’s longtime political aide.

Paxton himself was coincidentally served earlier in the day at a restaurant in Austin, according to a whistleblower lawyer, Tom Nesbitt.

“In this case, I believe the plaintiffs have shown good cause that these four people have unique and superior knowledge of discoverable information,” Soifer said from the bench, adding that the four people were “not just figureheads” but people who knew about issues “at the heart” of the case.

The whistleblowers asked the court last month to force Paxton and his aides to sit for depositions. They said their filing was a last resort after they could not reach an agreement with lawyers for the Office of the Attorney General.

It remains to be seen if Paxton’s side will further fight the depositions. His office’s attorney, Bill Helfand, declined to comment to reporters as he left the courthouse.

“They lost badly,” Nesbitt told reporters after the hearing. “I don’t put anything past Ken Paxton. There’s no limit to the amount of taxpayer money he will spend to hide from accountability, so I’m sure they’ll try some kind of appeal.”

The whistleblowers are four former top deputies — Blake Brickman, Ryan Vassar, David Maxwell and Mark Penley — who sued Paxton in 2020, arguing he improperly fired them after they reported him to the FBI. They alleged he was abusing his office to help a wealthy friend and donor, Nate Paul.

They came close to settling with Paxton for $3.3 million in February, but the Texas House balked at using taxpayer dollars for the figure and decided to investigate the underlying claims. That triggered Paxton’s impeachment by the House in May. The Senate acquitted him after a trial in September.

The whistleblowers sought to restart their lawsuit after the impeachment verdict, and the Texas Supreme Court cleared the way for them to do so. But Paxton’s office quickly fought the revived lawsuit in Travis County, suing the whistleblowers in neighboring Burnet County to block it.

Paxton’s lawyers lost in Burnet County and have since abandoned that lawsuit.

Soifer ruled against Paxton’s side earlier in the hearing, rejecting their motion to enforce the tentative settlement agreement. It had been their latest effort to effectively shut down the case in Travis County by arguing it was already settled.

They have made that argument despite the Legislature still not approving the $3.3 million, one of the provisions of the agreement.

“It says [it] in plain English,” Soifer said.

When it came to the depositions, Nesbitt argued Paxton’s testimony was especially relevant. His office has publicly said Paxton is the “decision-maker” for the hiring and firing of employees.

“Ken Paxton made these decisions,” Nesbitt said, telling Soifer that it is virtually unheard of for someone to argue in an employment case that the “decision-maker … somehow doesn’t have special knowledge, doesn’t have unique knowledge.”

Helfand argued the four people were protected by the apex doctrine, a legal doctrine that seeks to protect high-level executives from overzealous litigants. Helfand told Soifer she should order the whistleblowers to seek depositions from other people first, and if those do not yield the information they want, they could then address the question of deposing Paxton and the three aides.

Helfand appeared to anticipate an unfavorable ruling and proactively asked Soifer that if she were to order the depositions, they should be “severely limited” in time and scope. He also said he would want to depose the plaintiffs first because they carry the burden of proof in the case.

Soifer appeared to reject both requests in her ruling, saying she would allow the depositions by the whistleblowers first and was “not inclined to put any limitations on these depositions.”

The timing of the depositions remains to be seen. After the ruling, Helfand asked the judge if the depositions could wait until after the third week of January, citing personal scheduling conflicts. Nesbitt said their side was OK with that.

As for Paxton's deposition, Nesbitt said it was a coincidence that he was served on the same day of the hearing.

"We’ve been trying to find him for a long time," Nesbitt said. I mean, the dude hides. ... And so we finally found him. We got a tip that he was going to be at a restaurant at a particular time."

Nesbitt did not name the restaurant where Paxton was served. He said Paxton was having "some kind of little holiday lunch" when it happened.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

Ken Paxton and aides ordered to answer questions under oath in whistleblower case

Posted on by Texas Tribune

By Patrick Svitek 

The Texas Tribune

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

A Travis County district judge has ordered Attorney General Ken Paxton and three top aides to sit for depositions in the 3-year-old whistleblower lawsuit against him.

At a hearing Wednesday in Austin, Judge Jan Soifer granted the whistleblowers’ motion to compel the depositions of Paxton; Brent Webster, the first assistant attorney general; Lesley French Henneke, chief of staff at the agency; and Michelle Smith, Paxton’s longtime political aide.

Paxton himself was coincidentally served earlier in the day at a restaurant in Austin, according to a whistleblower lawyer, Tom Nesbitt.

“In this case, I believe the plaintiffs have shown good cause that these four people have unique and superior knowledge of discoverable information,” Soifer said from the bench, adding that the four people were “not just figureheads” but people who knew about issues “at the heart” of the case.

The whistleblowers asked the court last month to force Paxton and his aides to sit for depositions. They said their filing was a last resort after they could not reach an agreement with lawyers for the Office of the Attorney General.

It remains to be seen if Paxton’s side will further fight the depositions. His office’s attorney, Bill Helfand, declined to comment to reporters as he left the courthouse.

“They lost badly,” Nesbitt told reporters after the hearing. “I don’t put anything past Ken Paxton. There’s no limit to the amount of taxpayer money he will spend to hide from accountability, so I’m sure they’ll try some kind of appeal.”

The whistleblowers are four former top deputies — Blake Brickman, Ryan Vassar, David Maxwell and Mark Penley — who sued Paxton in 2020, arguing he improperly fired them after they reported him to the FBI. They alleged he was abusing his office to help a wealthy friend and donor, Nate Paul.

They came close to settling with Paxton for $3.3 million in February, but the Texas House balked at using taxpayer dollars for the figure and decided to investigate the underlying claims. That triggered Paxton’s impeachment by the House in May. The Senate acquitted him after a trial in September.

The whistleblowers sought to restart their lawsuit after the impeachment verdict, and the Texas Supreme Court cleared the way for them to do so. But Paxton’s office quickly fought the revived lawsuit in Travis County, suing the whistleblowers in neighboring Burnet County to block it.

Paxton’s lawyers lost in Burnet County and have since abandoned that lawsuit.

Soifer ruled against Paxton’s side earlier in the hearing, rejecting their motion to enforce the tentative settlement agreement. It had been their latest effort to effectively shut down the case in Travis County by arguing it was already settled.

They have made that argument despite the Legislature still not approving the $3.3 million, one of the provisions of the agreement.

“It says [it] in plain English,” Soifer said.

When it came to the depositions, Nesbitt argued Paxton’s testimony was especially relevant. His office has publicly said Paxton is the “decision-maker” for the hiring and firing of employees.

“Ken Paxton made these decisions,” Nesbitt said, telling Soifer that it is virtually unheard of for someone to argue in an employment case that the “decision-maker … somehow doesn’t have special knowledge, doesn’t have unique knowledge.”

Helfand argued the four people were protected by the apex doctrine, a legal doctrine that seeks to protect high-level executives from overzealous litigants. Helfand told Soifer she should order the whistleblowers to seek depositions from other people first, and if those do not yield the information they want, they could then address the question of deposing Paxton and the three aides.

Helfand appeared to anticipate an unfavorable ruling and proactively asked Soifer that if she were to order the depositions, they should be “severely limited” in time and scope. He also said he would want to depose the plaintiffs first because they carry the burden of proof in the case.

Soifer appeared to reject both requests in her ruling, saying she would allow the depositions by the whistleblowers first and was “not inclined to put any limitations on these depositions.”

The timing of the depositions remains to be seen. After the ruling, Helfand asked the judge if the depositions could wait until after the third week of January, citing personal scheduling conflicts. Nesbitt said their side was OK with that.

As for Paxton's deposition, Nesbitt said it was a coincidence that he was served on the same day of the hearing.

"We’ve been trying to find him for a long time," Nesbitt said. I mean, the dude hides. ... And so we finally found him. We got a tip that he was going to be at a restaurant at a particular time."

Nesbitt did not name the restaurant where Paxton was served. He said Paxton was having "some kind of little holiday lunch" when it happened.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.