Galloway quits!


Madison – State Sen. Pam Galloway, who faces a recall election this summer, plans to resign from the Senate shortly, leaving an even split between Republicans and Democrats.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) confirmed her plans Friday and said he believed Galloway would make an announcement later in the day.

Fitzgerald said Galloway was resigning because of health issues in her family. He said he was confident she could have won the recall election.

Her resignation would cause the Republicans to lose their majority. Republicans would hold 16 seats and Democrats would hold 16 seats.

That could change in May or June, when recall elections are expected to be held for Fitzgerald and two other senators.

Rep. Donna Seidel (D-Wausau) had planned to run against Galloway.


Related Articles

30 thoughts on “Galloway quits!

  1. The session is over. This would literally mean nothing between now and the November election.

  2. The session is over? Does that mean the Dane County D.A. can start serving subpoenas on Republican legislators and staffers involved the Secrecy Oath Scandal? One, two, three…many Legal Defense Funds and more money for MB&F. The Republicans should just load up a plane and fly everyone to Palm Beach.

  3. Guess it makes it that much harder to pass a mining bill if a special session is called.

  4. Zuma!!! Everything is done. Republicans got almost everything except the mining bill which the Dems are now taking heat for. Very little will happen legislatively in Wisconsin until the November election. Republicans will pick up Jessica King’s seat. Just wait to those new districts take effect in 2014 also. It’s going to be a good decade for this state. Wisconsin will once again become a leader in the nation for a new political movement. What do you think about those predictions? Also I’m not sure if you were still following our previous discussion but what do you think of those predictions? I hope eveyone here wishes Senator Galloway well as she faces some very difficult family matters.

    1. As a general proposition, Pete, I think that you need to get a new crystal ball.

      In specific, Galloway’s decision matters for a variety of reasons.

      (1) Whether Galloway or Big Fitz want to admit it, Wisconsin Republicans are worried about the recall elections. The reality is that Galloway would rather resign on her own terms than be shown the door by the voters;

      (2) With Galloway’s resignation, the Republicans will objectively lose their Senate majority, with Fitzgerald and Mark Miller becoming co-leaders of the Senate. Even as a just a cosmetic consideration that matters:

      (3) Without the tyrant’s gavel in his hand, Big Fitz and the Senate Republicans will have to tolerate transparency;

      (4) Without the tyrant’s gavel in his hand, Big Fitz and the Senate Republicans will be forced to respect the Open Meetings Law;

      (5) As JoeBob noted, the Legislature can be called into special session, and could be called into such a session to consider the contentious mining bill. In point of fact, as the Journal-Sentinel article regarding the Galloway resignation points out, [soon to be ex-]Governor Walker had discussed calling the Legislature into special session for that very reason.

      (6) As Big Fitz himself has now admitted (according the Journal-Sentinel article, Fitzgerald said he believed that it would now be much more difficult to reach any kind of deal on mining), Fitz and the Senate Republicans now have their hands objectively tied with respect to playing games with the mining bill, and may even have the table turned on them, depending on what Schultz decides to do, so it is unlikely that Walker will do that. Even if he does, Galloway’s absence accordingly and significantly alters the playing field;

      (7) Per the Journal-Sentinel article: “The Legislature is awaiting a decision from a three-judge panel on whether maps of legislative districts that Republicans drew last year pass constitutional muster. If the federal judges find the maps were improperly drawn, they will likely send them back to the Legislature.

      That would mean Republicans and Democrats would have to agree on any new election maps. If they could not, the judges would have to draw them.

      How the maps are drawn is crucial because they can give one party an advantage over the other. The maps Republicans drew last year greatly benefit their side, but Democrats and Latinos sued, arguing the maps violated the federal Voting Rights Act and U.S. Constitution because of how they treated minorities and because they caused 300,000 people to wait six years, instead of four, between their opportunities to vote in state Senate elections.”

      The Legislature might be called into special session for something like that, too. With Big Fitz’s ham-hands and tyrannical instincts having now been placed in “restraints”, no more Republican arrogance or hanky-panky.

      So, yes, Pete, for all those reasons, IT matters. IT matters a lot. If Scott Fitzgerald was capable of uttering a single honest thing, even HE would have to admit that.

      1. Zuma, your point about redistricting is probably the most important point in all of this. If the judges presiding over the redistricting lawsuit do in fact rule that the Legislature must redraw the maps, Democrats suddenly have much more say-so over what those maps will look like.

        Ultimately the maps still may not favor Democrats because of the Republican Assembly majority, but they’ll be a lot less egregious than they are at this moment.

  5. This does mean something, no matter how conservatives try to spin it. There’s a certain advantage to incumbency, and Republicans just gave up that advantage in Galloway’s seat.

  6. @Pete First of all, it’s not even likely the legislative districts will pass legal muster. The Circuit Court hearing them has given major credence to the argument that Republicans moved too many people from odd-number to even-number Senate districts (and vice versa). BTW, the panel hearing the case is made of 2 Republican appointees and 1 Dem appointee so don’t cry activist court if Republicans lose this case.

    Second of all, even if new districts stand, Galloway’s district changed little so it’s still as competitive as ever. Little changed to King’s and Holperin’s districts so they are probably favored to win again.

    Third of all, the mining bill in its current form is all but dead. And good riddance as part of Walker’s original proposal for the bill involved trampling on land treaties with the tribes.

    Finally, if everything is so sunshine and lollipops with Republicans in control and doing all sorts of stuff, why is Wisconsin lagging well behind the country in economic and job growth?

  7. Pete, I know that the meme on the right us that the Dems are taking hits on the mine, but the reality is everyone not named shrill labare knows that the failure there wad the Fitzgerald family… they had an oppty to compromise and showed no interest in that.

    As for the new maps, you had better hope that they go through or the republic party will be irrelevant for years. Your only chance to get elected is gerrymander district and huge sums of money. They have shown that when theyattempt to govern they are completely unsuccessful and wildly unpopular.

  8. Politiscoop is reporting that the recall elections for Scott (“Don’t ask for whom the [John Doe] bell tolls, it tolls for thee”) Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch are now a reality. Walker and Kleefisch are now officially recalled [to election].

    I wonder how many other Republican officeholders like Galloway will “elect” to resign rather than face the indignity of being unceremoniously thrown out of office in the recall elections.

    It’s not like they DON’T have reasons to worry, right, Governor Doe, uh, I mean, Walker?

  9. The timing of Galloway’s resignation isn’t insignificant or coincidental, is it, Big Fitz?

    “Interim Position of Incumbent: If the officeholder resigns after the completion ofthe petitioner’s registration, but before the filing of the petition, or before the primary or election, the recall proceeds unaffected. However, the time of resignation may affect whether the resigned officeholder appears on the ballot. If the
    officeholder resigns more than 10 days after the date of certification of the recall petition, the resigned officeholder remains on the ballot for the recall primary or recall election.”

    §9.10(3)(c), Wis. Stats.

    “If the officeholder does not resign, he or she continues to perform the duties of the office. If the incumbent is defeated at the recall election, he or she continues to perform the duties until a certificate of election is issued to the successor.”

    §9.10(5)(b), Wis. Stats.

  10. So the statute states that a recall candidate has to withdraw within 10 days. I get that – could be a huge mess if an office holder could simply quit the day before a recall election & we’d have to start over with a special election instead. I think 10 days is probably an unreasonable time frame though, but that’s another discussion.

    What I find interesting – since the window has passed, that means Galloway is on the recall ballot even though she’s resigned. Doesn’t that effectively mean the republicans can’t run another candidate? You can’t have a primary for a recall target, right? And a party isn’t allowed to put multiple candidates on the ballot.

      1. I didn’t say that there couldn’t be primaries – just not primaries for the target of the recall.

        Since GAB has said, she won’t be on the ballot, that answers it. But I found the quote from the article you linked to be contradictory:

        Senator Galloway’s impending resignation does not stop the recall process, and a <b.recall election to fill her seat will be held without her name on the ballot.</b?

        State statutes say that:

        The official against whom the recall petition is filed shall be a candidate at the recall election without nomination unless the official resigns within 10 days after the original filing of the petition. §9.10(3)(c)

        How exactly is the former consistent with the latter? The official will be a candidate (on the ballot) UNLESS they resign within 10 days. She didn’t resign within 10 days, but they decided she won’t be on the ballot. Apparently the word unless doesn’t mean what I think it means.

        1. Ooops – lazy on the tags…

          Jeff – I guess I the part about not requiring nomination papers, etc make sense. Seems self-evident by definition a recall is against a sitting candidate, but making it even more clear is fine.

          Guess, the other operative word is shall.

          I don’t particularly care either way about any of the candidates in case, but just seems to me GAB is not following the statute they quoted. I think I’ve probably defended them as much as anybody in that in theory their structure might be as good of an approach as we can get. But at least a handful of times, they seem to just do what they want and don’t follow the statutes consistently in all cases.

    1. You can primary a recall candidate. Some guy from New Glarus is running against Scott Walker.

      I believe the thing is the recall candidate can just declare they are running w/o going out and getting all of the nomination papers filed again, while everyone else has to get the required amount of signatures.

  11. Every time I think about the John Doe investigation and Walker’s related and ever-increasing woes, I hear Homer Simpson’s voice saying, “John DOH!”

    With each new day, there is something new to suggest that the tide has irrevocably turned. Fitzwalkerstan is crumbling. The gains secured throught chicanery and fraud by the Walkers and the Fitzgeralds of the world seem increasingly impermanent. There is just something in the air, a cosmic shift.

    You know what? I just think that the Republican Party, in Wisconsin and nationally, is so disconnected from where the future is taking this country, particularly given its changing demographics, from this country’s fundamentally progressive instincts and roots, and from this country’s fundamental decency and sense of fair play that it thought, and thinks, that dirty politics would, and will, pass muster with the electorate, in the first place, and that it could, and can, somehow boot-strap its way into continuing political relevance and power with anti-democratic shenanigans and “Southern Strategy”-like manipulation of the less intelligent, racist and xenophobic among us, in the second.

    I think that the country, and certainly Wisconsin, has, once and for all, finally awakened to the reality of Republican ideas, to the reality of Republican governance, in a truly fundamental way.

    I feel it in my bones. 2012 will be a watershed year, for Republicans, for Democrats, for Wisconsin, for the country. In future history books, it be described as a turning point, the beginning of the end for the Republican Party.

    Karma is biting the Republicans on the ass these days, and their response? Doubling down with ideas, with policies, with tactics, and with candidates antithetical to the things for which America stands.

    As we speak, I suspect that a seat is being “dusted off” in the dustbins of history for the Republican Party, right alongside the seats occupied by the Whigs and the Know Nothings.

    I feel it in my bones, my progressive brothers and sisters. And it feels good.

  12. I hope that Rep Galloway can overcome whatever it is that she is dealing with on a personal level, so best wishes to her and her family.

    Ironically, isn’t her district very labor rights orientated but socially conservative? If I remember correctly, Russ Decker was her predecessor and he lost partially because he was the deciding vote that killed a renewal of major contracts.

    1. Prosser disgraced the SC, and the people of WI. It is past time they brought up these ethics charges@

Comments are closed.