Skip to comments.2 Republicans propose eliminating state treasurer, secretary of state
Posted on 07/08/2013 1:34:00 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
Madison Already relieved of most of the responsibilities required of their offices in other states, the positions of secretary of state and state treasurer would be eliminated under a constitutional amendment proposed by two Assembly Republicans.
"In this day and age, they are outdated positions," said Rep. Tyler August (R-Lake Geneva). "We can save the state some money by eliminating them."
The positions are much weaker than in other states. Republican State Treasurer Kurt Schuller, for example, had one of his last major responsibilities authority of the state's unclaimed property program eliminated under the state budget.
Eliminating the positions would require a constitutional amendment, which would have to pass through two consecutive sessions of the Legislature and receive voter approval in a referendum. The earliest the Wisconsin Constitution could be changed is 2015.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
Republicans propose Constitutional Amendments
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
Of course, it is worth pointing out that the Republicans haven’t won the WI Sec of State office since 1970.
OTOH, the Republicans have held the Treasurer’s seat for much of that time, even when the Dems held the majority of other offices.
The GOP and the Dems have about split the difference with WI Treasurer since after 1970. From 1971-1991, the Dems held it without interruption, and the GOP from 1991-2007 and reclaimed it again in 2011. I think the argument could be made for making Sec of State either a Gubernatorial appointment or elected by the legislature or transferring the duties to the Lt Governor.
In my state of TN, both Sec of State and Treasurer along with Comptroller are elected by the legislature. Of course, that being the case, no Republican occupied any of those offices from early Reconstruction (at or around 1870) clear up until 2009.
In FL, they eliminated Sec of State as an elected office beginning with 2002 and made it a Gubernatorial appointed one (though that was partly due to fear that Katherine Harris would likely be defeated for reelection to a position any other Republican would’ve been able to hold — and her horrid performance running for Senator in 2006 confirmed that notion).
Great symbolic political move to make it look like your saving money when its still a drop in the bucket.
Elected positions turned into nonelected ones?????
“Great symbolic political move to make it look like your saving money when its still a drop in the bucket.”....
You can drop $2 million in my buck anything you have that much surplus.
Certainly there would be cost even if these were appointed positions. At least they would be a closer part of the controlling “administration” if appointed. There are always going to be games played by opposing parties and these two positions are no different.
Correction.....”Anything” should read “anytime” (Sorry, its too early for my old fingers)
On the surface it seems a bad idea to take what is in effect a division of executive power among several elected officials and concentrate them all under one pol.
Better that the GOP get their act together and run a strong enough SoS candidate to win the office.
The SOS gets paid for doing clerical work — publishing bills and publishing the Blue Book (a political biographical hand out that legislators give their constituents.) It could easily be an appointed office.
The SoS has responsibility for conducting elections. The Rats know how valuable that is.
Actually, the Government Accountability Board conducts elections. I don’t think our SOS has anything to do with it.
Ah, I hadn’t realized that. Looks like they stripped that role from the SoS back in the ‘70s.