After pushback from the community, a polling place won’t move out of City Hall after all.
The fourth-floor City Hall council chambers, which is a polling place for Wards 3 and 4, will be under renovation during the April and August elections. City Clerk-Treasurer Dave Godek recommended temporarily moving the polling place across the street to the police department.
Several residents and representatives of minority-focused groups Monday implored the council not to use the police station as a polling place, claiming it would be a form of voter suppression.
René Bue, the Hedberg Public Library’s programming and outreach coordinator, said the city’s consideration of the police station as a polling place shows it isn’t as welcoming as she’d hoped. The city has created a situation with “unsettling coincidences” to an attempt at voter suppression, she said.
Resident Santo Carfora said the idea to use the police station is “typical white thinking.”
“This is a major microaggression. We never even considered the people being moved because we assumed, as white people, they’d be fine,” Carfora said.
“We don’t have to think about our whiteness. That’s a privilege,” he said.
Resident Al Lembrich said it was ridiculous for people to complain about using the police department as a polling place. “Troubled, mixed-up” people can vote absentee, if they even vote, Lembrich said.
Most who opposed the police department as a polling place commended the Janesville Police Department and Chief Dave Moore for their progressive mindset and work to bridge racial divides.
“My opposition is not against the Janesville Police Department. It is against the unintended outcome of voter suppression that may occur with the move,” said Lonnie Brigham Jr., chairman of the African American Liaison Advisory Committee.
He held up a petition he claimed had more than 1,000 signatures from Wisconsin residents who agree police stations shouldn’t be polling places.
Janesville, once home to the Ku Klux Klan, would “make history by repeating history” if the police station became a polling place, Brigham said.
“It’s time for the few to start hearing the voice of the many,” he said.
Cathy Myers, a Janesville School Board member and Democratic congressional candidate, also opposed using the police department.
“This is an oppressive way to keep people from coming to vote. I think that’s wrong,” said resident Ray Jewell. “I think that this would be a big step backwards.”
Councilman Paul Williams apologized for not immediately seeing a problem with the police station being a polling place. Some minorities in Janesville come from Rockford, Illinois, and Chicago, where they’ve had bad experiences with police, and Williams can’t put himself in their shoes, he said.
Councilwoman Sue Conley said it’s not a black or white issue, but rather one about human rights. Even some white people might be intimidated by voting in a police station, she said.
Conley suggested keeping the polling place at City Hall but moving it to the first floor. Godek said that was an option but that space is limited.
City Manager Mark Freitag said if the polling place moved to the first-floor lobby, the nearby human resources and attorney’s offices would close for the day to accommodate voters.
Before the motion to keep the polling place at City Hall, Councilman Jens Jorgensen spoke in favor of using the police station for voting. If the polling place were moved elsewhere, some voters without reliable transportation might not make it to the new location, which is another form of voter suppression, he said.
“On Election Day, I don’t think the enemy is going to be the police department. It’s going to be confusion,” Jorgensen said. “That’s what I really, really worry about.”
The national media report negative stories about the relationship between police and minorities, but that’s not an issue in Janesville. The Janesville Police Department is “world class” in its progressiveness, Jorgensen said.
“This is a chance to really show how open of a community we really are,” he said.
Conley said her recommendation to keep the polling place at City Hall is a compromise between those who don’t want to vote in a police station and those such as Jorgensen, who worry moving the polling place far from City Hall could confuse voters.
Several speakers recommended Wilson Elementary School as a polling place. Godek said he reached out to the school and never heard back. Other locations Godek considered included the Armory, the Traxler Park warming house and City Hall’s parking garage. After evaluating them, Godek’s recommendation remained the police department.
Other places, such as Janesville’s Central Fire Station, First Presbyterian Church and the Janesville Senior Center, had limited parking or did not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, so they were not good alternatives.
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the Trump administration’s highly unusual bid to bypass a federal appeals court and get the justices to intervene in the fate of a program that protects hundreds of thousands of young immigrants from deportation.
The announcement means the case affecting Dreamers will have to work its way through the lower courts before any Supreme Court ruling is possible. The case could also become moot if Congress takes action in the meantime. Right now, however, efforts to address the issue in Congress have hit a stalemate.
The Supreme Court’s decision for now to stay out of the case on the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, wasn’t surprising. It’s highly unusual for the Supreme Court to hear a case before a lower appeals court has considered it.
But DACA supporters hailed the decision as a significant—if only temporary—win. Trump said the case would now be heard by an appeals court and “we’ll see what happens from there.”
“You know, we tried to get it moved quickly because we’d like to help DACA. I think everybody in this room wants to help with DACA,” he said to visiting governors. “But the Supreme Court just ruled that it has to go through the normal channels.”
DACA has provided protection from deportation and work permits for about 800,000 young people who came to the U.S. as children and stayed illegally.
In September, Trump argued that President Barack Obama had exceeded his executive powers when he created the program. Trump announced he was ending the program effective March 5 and gave lawmakers until then to come up with a legislative fix.
But in recent weeks, federal judges in San Francisco and New York have made Trump’s deadline temporarily moot for people who have sought and been granted renewals; the rulings do not extend to people who are applying for the first time. Judges issued injunctions ordering the administration to keep DACA in place while courts consider legal challenges to Trump’s termination. As a result, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services resumed accepting and processing DACA renewals in January, just as it had before Trump’s September announcement.
The Trump administration has not tried to block the injunctions that force it to continue operating the program. Though the March 5 date is now moot, Greisa Martinez, policy and advocacy director for United We Dream, said DACA supporters planned to demonstrate in Washington on that day in part to continue to pressure Congress to act.
The Senate two weeks ago blocked a bipartisan bill offering Dreamers potential citizenship and providing $25 billion for President Donald Trump to build his proposed border wall with Mexico. A more conservative House proposal that sharply reduces legal immigration and imposes other restrictions has languished short of the GOP votes it would need to pass, leaving its fate in question.
The Supreme Court’s announcement Monday that it wouldn’t step in to the case now means the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will likely be the first appeals court to weigh in on the topic, the step before the case would return to the Supreme Court.
The Ninth Circuit has set no date to hear arguments but has given lawyers dates by which they must file briefs that run through April.
A trial began Monday for a man accused of sexually assaulting an elderly Janesville woman almost 18 years ago.
The case against Kelly L. Baxter, 54, of 106 Cherry St., Janesville, relies heavily on DNA analysis of bloodstains on a bed sheet, Assistant District Attorney Rich Sullivan indicated in his opening statement to the jury.
The woman was 78 at the time of the April 1, 2000, incident. She died in 2011.
Baxter was not charged until February 2017, after the state Crime Lab matched DNA from the bed sheet blood to Baxter.
Baxter had been required to give the sample in 2016 after he was convicted of misdemeanor sexual assault that occurred in 2014, according to the criminal complaint.
That information went to Janesville police, who talked to Baxter and found he lived five houses away from the woman at the time of the assault, Sullivan said.
Baxter denied knowing the woman or ever being in her house, Sullivan said.
The woman was a widow. At the time of the assault, she was in her bed in the house she had lived in for decades, Sullivan said.
“She lived alone. She loved her neighborhood. She loved to have the window open so the sun would come in when she would wake up in the morning. And she was in her bed at 5 a.m. And she was awakened to what she thought was the sound of somebody down below, entering her home, and then soon thereafter somebody was coming into her room,” Sullivan said.
The man wore a dark, hooded sweatshirt with a T-shirt pulled over his nose, she told police at the time, according to the criminal complaint.
“We’ll hear testimony that she heard somebody attempting to use broken English, say things such as, ‘You know you’ve been alone for a long time. You know you want it,’ and then while she was in her bed, she was sexually assaulted,” Sullivan said.
She didn’t have her glasses on, and she thought he had the accent of a Spanish speaker, he said.
She fought back and was injured in the process, Sullivan said.
After the intruder left, she tried to call her daughter but could not because he had cut her phone line. She changed clothes and went across the street to call from a neighbor’s house, and police arrived around 7 a.m., Sullivan said.
Sullivan said he intends to call three witnesses who heard the woman’s story soon after the assault: a doctor who examined her, a nurse who conducted a sexual-assault examination and a police officer.
Defense attorney Philip Brehm said in his opening statement that the woman’s description of her assailant does not match Baxter, and although she said she scratched him, his DNA was not found under her fingernails or elsewhere on her body.
“There’s not going to be any evidence that she ever identified my client as her assailant,” Brehm said. “Her description of her assailant to medical personnel is not consistent with my client’s description, and I’m going to ask that you listen very closely to that evidence.”
“There may be evidence that my client’s DNA was found at her residence. I ask that you listen closely to that evidence. I ask that you consider all the other evidence in the case, and I think when you listen to all the evidence, you will see that the state’s case is not as compelling as they are presenting it to you.”
The lawyers were expected to wrap up their cases today, when the jury would begin deliberations.