It’s unfortunate, but a fascinating statewide race has gotten little attention in the mainstream media.
Of course, it didn’t help that the state’s largest paper more or less called it for the incumbent way back in August because of his overstuffed campaign war chest.
But there’s a funny thing about the race for state Attorney General: it’s a lot more competitive than you may believe. And it’s worth your attention, no matter what the Journal Sentinel says.
Let’s take a look at the incumbent, state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen.
What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you think about Van Hollen?
Well, let’s start with Van Hollen’s mishandling of the Ken Kratz case. The AG preferred to let the case die in a bureaucratic mess rather than working hard to hold the sexting DAand fellow Republicanaccountable.
Then there’s Van Hollen’s attempt to repeal the federal health care reform bill and his willingness to defend Arizona’s controversial, race-baiting immigration law.
And Van Hollen’s attempt to cause chaos at the polls in 2008, which was taken straight from the Republican Party’s playbook.
And his refusal to represent the state in a suit brought by his political supporters to challenge the state’s domestic partnership registry.
|
|
And Gov. Doyle being forced to hire outside counsel to fight an injunction of embryonic stem cell research.
OK. So none of that is positive.
What about some of the things Van Hollen’s done in office?
There isn’t much to go on. Van Hollen has famously made Internet crimes against children a top priority. But that’s more of a PR stunt than a crime-fighting strategy.
Ah, but Van Hollen eliminated the DNA backlog! That surely should count for something. But the Legislature threw money at the problem once it was brought to the public’s attention. So it’s not like Van Hollen had to pinch pennies and shift scant resources to get the job done.
But there’s another DNA backlog that happened on Van Hollen’s watchthe failure of the state Department of Corrections to take DNA samples from those convicted of felonies and send them to the State Crime Lab. While Van Hollen isn’t in charge of the DOC, he’s certainly in charge of the crime lab. The problem began in 2001 and didn’t come to light until the Journal Sentinel reported on it in late 2009three years into Van Hollen’s term. How bad is this backlog? About 12,000 DNA samples are missing that could be used in fighting crime.
OK. So here’s the thing about Van Hollen. When people think about him it’s negative. And even his achievements are mixed.
That’s why the state’s mainstream media shouldn’t have written off this race. And why Van Hollen’s Democratic challenger, former DNR Secretary Scott Hassett, shouldn’t be underestimated.
That's why the Shepherd endorsed Scott Hassett for Attorney General in this week's paper.
I interviewed Hassett last week as he swung through Milwaukee. I’d seen him debate Van Hollen at Marquette a few weeks ago and then, as now, found him to be a strong debater, someone who’s used to being in charge and doesn’t shy away from a fight.
He’s using Van Hollen’s high negatives against him, reminding voters that the AG dropped the ball on the Kratz investigation (Van Hollen’s DOJ never interviewed the Republican DA and cleared him of wrongdoing in a matter of days) as well as the AG’s willingness to go to bat for purely partisan ploys.
Hassett wants to refocus the AG’s office so that it’s more actively involved in matters outside of public safetyfor example, interpreting the Great Lakes Water Compact and increasing its consumer protection efforts. But on public safety he’s vastly different from Van Hollen. Hassett wants to increase the office’s support for community policing in Milwaukee and find alternatives to incarceration for the folks who have drug and alcohol problems or mental health issues. Yes, they should pay their debt to society, Hassett says, but that doesn’t mean he subscribes to a blanket lock-‘em-up mentality.
Hassett is also open-minded about concealed carry, saying he’s willing to consider a package deal that combines stricter gun regulation and penalties with a permitting system. Milwaukee County DA John Chisholm and MPD Chief Ed Flynn proposed a similar package last year.
Here’s an excerpt from my interview with Hassett:
Shepherd: You have a very different view of the AG’s office than Van Hollen. You say you want to be the people’s lawyer.
Hassett: He likes to talk “top cop.” He’d like to leave it at that. I say the AG is the people’s lawyer because the Justice Department does so much more. If you look at their actual litigation it’s about 60% civil and 40% criminal. You are the state’s lawyer in so many things, whether it’s consumer protection, environmental protection, prosecuting on behalf of the state or defending the state in law suits, civil rights, even defending the university hospitals and other entities in medical malpractice suits. There are so many things aside from the law enforcement function, which is very important. Public safety has to be the top priority. But it’s a lot more than “top cop.”
Shepherd: You’ve been very critical of Van Hollen’s handling of the Kratz case, saying he should have done something a year ago to hold his fellow Republican accountable.
Hassett: If he’d been doing his job he would have brought it to the governor’s attention 11 months ago and we would have been done with this guy before we had subsequent allegations. He could have told the governor that we have a problem and you are the only guy who can take him out. Or he would have told the victim she could have filed a claim.
The governor was attorney general for a dozen years and he knew what to do immediately. But he hears about it from the press. I think he was very bothered that he didn’t hear about it until 11 months later and he had to hear about it in the press. He immediately knew what had to be done.
Then this shoddy [DOJ] investigation where in Appleton he said “We had three dozen people on this,” on Madison Channel 27, “We had dozens of people on this,” and then when the State Journal did an open records request on it shortly thereafter it found that they [the DOJ] disposed of the whole thing within a few days and they didn’t even talk to Kratz. Near as everyone can tell, two DOJ agents talked to her. Three dozen?
Later, when this became public, then he was talking about serious it was and how hot they were to prosecute that guy in the context of that governor appointed commission. Where was all of the enthusiasm 11 months ago?
Shepherd: Van Hollen has taken a shot at you, too, for not being a prosecutor. What’s your response?
Hassett: I was a litigator for 22 years all over this state. I did hundreds and hundreds of criminal cases. I know what a good prosecution is. I have beat prosecutors and I have lost to prosecutors. I have tried cases from Elkhorn to Ashland and all points in between. I have appeared in more than 40 counties with criminal and civil litigation, which he’s never done. I have done just about everything they do at the DOJ in terms of litigation, both on the criminal and civil side. Civil rights, employment, consumer protection, environmental cases, even medical malpractice cases. I’ve pretty much done it all in terms of what they litigate there.
At the DNR, within it is one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the state, in terms of certified law enforcement personnel. The DNR’s division of law enforcement alone is about the same size as the DOJ. The DNR has about 2,500 positions, which is five times the size as the DOJ. I’ve signed off on hundreds of prosecutions, civil and criminal, at the DNR, some of which I was very much involved in, such as the ones with the MMSD here.
We also brought a criminal prosecution against Menards, which resulted in the largest criminal environmental fine in the state, $2 million. I was very much involved in that and took a beating from Republican legislators in northwest Wisconsin over that and other Menards issues. They were trying to build on wetlands. But nonetheless, a local judge fined them $2 million, a criminal violation. They beat the old record, which Menards also held, which is $1.2 million. JB Van Hollen’s largest single campaign contributor is John Menard.
Shepherd: Water is a huge issue here in southeastern Wisconsin. Do you see a role for the DOJ in our water issues?
Hassett: Where the DOJ is going to play a very big role in the next 10 years is in interpreting the Great Lakes compact, whether it’s in litigation or [developing] attorney general opinions. Inevitably there’s going to be some litigation involving other states or our state permits.
From the beginning at the DNR I said if Waukesha wants water then it must be returned to the Great Lakes. When Dan Duchniak, their water guy, first approached me he said, “What are our prospects?” And I said, “You can start laying pipe.” And he said, “Oh, yeah.” I said, “Both ways.” [laughs] It’s expensive but if you’re taking a lot of water out of the lake… There are a lot of people who want to put a straw in the lake but you have to set a precedent.
Shepherd: Inevitably, no matter who becomes governor or who takes control of the Legislature, calls for concealed carry will come up in the next year. What’s your take on the issue?
Hassett: I have a long history with guns. Nevertheless, I’ve never been in favor of concealed carry. Although, when Chief Flynn and DA Chisholm talk about the tradeoff, I have an open mind about that. What they’re talking about is concealed carry, OK, if it’s combined with legislation that toughens up laws for illegal carry and straw buyers. Those should be felonies instead of misdemeanors. Politically, that may be the only way that happens. I don’t think the concealed carry people would be in favor of those other provisions, and I don’t know if those in favor of those other two provisions would be in favor of concealed carry. But if you put it all together in a policy compromise, I do have an open mind on that.
