Amending the constitution to death

Wisconsin Republicans, frustrated that the old checks-and-balances system of government hasn't let them ram their whole agenda down our throats, now say they want to amend the constitution to require voters to have photo ID cards.

The super-heated rhetoric is so over the top it is laughable. But it is also scary, because it seems as though the Repubs are beginning to take themselves seriously.

John Gard, as usual, wins top prize for the most over-the-top rhetoric after the Assembly failed to override Doyle's veto Tuesday. Gard accused the Democrats of wanting to aid people who steal elections, saying Doyle was "someone who needs people to cheat if he wants to stay as governor," WisPolitics reported.

Let's just say it again for the record: There is no evidence of voter fraud. Not one case has been documented. And there is not a single problem that would have been solved by having a photo ID requirement. Period.

The Rs pretend to be surprised that Gov. Doyle vetoed the bill, even though he had done it once before and said every day, when anyone asked him, that he would do it again. Doyle is one of those old-fashioned types who think our goal is to have more people vote, not to make it harder and keep people away from the polls.

Rick Graber, GOP chair/attack dog, calls Doyle an obstructionist. Polls show the people support the bill, Graber says, so "the logical choice is to let them vote on this."

That is beginning to be the Rs' solution to anything they can't get done legislatively.

We will have gay marriage on the ballot next year. They will take another crack this fall at the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), since they have been unable to pass a tax freeze. Now they want to add voter ID to the ballot.

What's next? Will we be passing constitutional amendments on everything Doyle vetoes, as a way to get around the legislative process set up by the constitution?

If we use Graber's criteria, there are some constitutional amendments the Dems should offer, too -- issues which the public overwhelming supports, but which have been blocked by GOP meanness and arrogance.

Let's start with the minimum wage. There is overwhelming support for raising it, but the GOP have blocked it. How about a constitutional amendment?

Or how about the issue of people having the right to make their own end-of-life decisions, without the kind of interference we saw in the Terri Schiavo case? There is overwhelming support for people's right to be left alone. Put it in the constitution?

There are many other examples of issues where the public's will is clear, but where no laws have been passed. Should they all go into the constitution? Of course not.

The legislative process set up in the state constitution intentionally made it difficult to pass a law. There are a lot of hurdles, which is why only a small percentage of the hundreds of bills introduced every session become law.

The process is designed to be deliberate, allow time to give rational consideration to ideas, and slow things down so that hysteria doesn't rule the day.

It is working just the way it is supposed to.

But the Repubs got spoiled when they controlled both houses and the gov's office, and got used to having their way. They haven't adapted to the new set of circumstances yet, with a Dem in the east wing.

Doyle, despite his critics on the left, has been courageous in his use of the veto to prevent dozens of bad ideas from becoming law. He is the Dems' last line of defense.

That frustrates the Rs, understandably. But the solution isn't to try to circumvent the governor and clutter up the constitution with all sorts of garbage that belongs in the statute books (or, in many cases, in the trash can).

If the Rs don't like the current setup, their options are to (a) elect a Repub as gov, or (b) win a 2/3 majority in both houses so they can override the vetoes.

The voters are smarter than Graber & Co. give them credit for. If the Rs continue to try to fill the ballot up with constitutional amendments that have no business in the constitution, they may pay a political price.