Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 1 of 20
Begin lorwarded message:
From: "Jacob. Ayad P." <ujacob(a;schiIllHlrdin.com>
Date: February 4, 1013. 6:08:23 PM CST
To: "Poland, Douglas" <D Pllianli(iii.gk law .cum>, "Peter Earle (\lCII.:r!£l'carlclaw.col11)"
Cc: "Alberts, Barry S." <balbcrls((ilschifllmrdin.com>
Subject: FW: Redistricting - S8150
Doug and Pcter,
Auachcd arc 15 documents which relati: to sa 150. Duplicate emails and strings were
eliminated. As agreed these documents.are provided without prejudice to or waiver or
Michael Best's position that documcn!s relating to SB 150 were not called ror by PIHintiiTs'
suhpoena and the Court's subsequent order:>. In addition. the production of ::lny documents
covered by the allomey-cJient privilege or the work·produet doctrine will nOl result in a
waivcr of those privileges and we reserve the right tei demand and you agree to return of ,my
such documents upon request.
Best Regards.
Ayad
Tax Matters: To the extent this message or any attachment concerns
tax matters, it is no t intended or written to be used, and cannot
be used by a taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties
that may be impo s e d on the taxpayer tinder law.
This message a nd a ny attachments may contain confidential
i nf or mati on p r o tected by the att orney- c l ien t or other privilege.
If yo u bel ieve t hat it ha s been sent t o you in errOl" ,
please reply t o the sender that you L-ece1ved the mess age in
error . Then delete it. Thank yo u.
I_
.
EX!J1,!!"f.No..-
If'
,
-
2i5/2013
-(608) 8JJ;.OJ!12
ott yY'\Ct Y'
4TIBIT(O.
13 .
'l)
I d...."
Kr 1 KiOd.!..
For the -Record, Inc.
(608) 833·0392
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 2 of 20
To:
Taffora, Raymond P (22244)[rptaffora@michaelbest.comj; 'tottmanTtottman@gmail.comj:
adamfoltz@gmail.com[adamfoltz@gmail.comj: 'Jim Troupis'Urtroupis@troupislawoffice.com]
Cc:
McLeod, Eric M (22257)[EMMcleod@michaelbesl.com)
Frcm:
Joseph W. Handrick
Sent:
Mon 711812011 6:48:43 PM
Subject RE: Fitchburg Memo - Ward Reduction Amendment
I believe Fitchburg is now OK.
I spoke with both Denise Solie and Jason (who is advising the Mayor who is out of the state today).
For some reason, they seemed to think the overall exemption provided in 56150 section 4 and the school
district exemption in current law were somehow linked and the latter would negate the former. They nOW
seem comfortable. The language added on Friday (Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to
compel a county or city to after or redraw supervisory or aldermanic districts.".) is giving them additional
comfort.
Denise will do her best to make sure no one from the city continues to claim state action is negatively
affecting her cities ability to create districts they desire.
From: Taffora, Raymond P (22244) [mailto:rptaffora@michaelbest.com]
Sent: Monday, July 18,20118:33 AM
To: joseph W. Handrick; 'tottman'; 'adamfoltz@gmall.com'; 'Jim Troupis'
Cc: Mcleod, Eric M (22257)
Subject: RE: Fitchburg Memo - Ward Reduction Amendment
Great.
Joe, you should go back to Mayor Shawn and tell him his request is outside the
"footprint" of SB 150 and suggest a way(s) for him to create Fitchi;)urg's "second
majority-minority district" if that is the Mayor's real concern. Perhaps Tad or Adam
could join your conversation with Shawn.
Ok?
From: Joseph W. Handrick [mai/to:JHandrick@reinhartlaw.com]
Sent: Monday. July 18, 2011 8:15 AM
Produced 2/412013 (15 Emails)
EVANS 000108
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 3 of 20
To: Taffora, Raymond P (22244); 'tottman'; 'adamfoltz@gmaiLcom'; 'Jim Troupis'
Cc: McLeod, Eric M (22257)
Subject: RE: Fitchburg Memo - Ward Reduction Amendment
... and if Fitchburg's issue is "occasioned by the creation of the new state legislative
districts," then no amendment is necessary because S8 150 itself solves it.
The only argument in favor of fIXing it is they continue to state they can't draw their
districts the way they wish and create a second minority district. That's not true, but it is
bad PR. "If we can get this simple addition added to S8 150, I think it will allow us to
create "majority minority" aldermanic districts in Fitchburg, which would truly represent
the diversity of our city for the next 10 years and the desire of our non-partisan, citizen
redistricting paneL" - the Mayor (from the email below).
From: Taffora, Raymond P (22244) [mailto:rptaffora@michaelbest.com]
Sent: Monday, July 18,2011 8:02AM
To: tottman; adamfoltz@gmail.com; Jim Troupis; Joseph W. Handrick
Cc: McLeod, Eric M (22257)
Subject: FW: Fitchburg Memo - Ward Reduction Amendment
Guys:
See below. Fitchburg has this request outstanding and we must decide whether to "fix"
Fitchburg's issue by a Senate floor amendment or not.
In my view, unless the problem that Fitchburg has is occasioned by the creation of new
state legislative districts, then we should decline Fitchburg's request. We have been
saying all along that S8 15O's "surgery" on the local redistricting process is confined to
allowing the municipalities to fIX ward divisions occasioned by the state's new
Produced 2/4/2013 (15 Emails)
EVANS 000109
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 4 of 20
legislativedistricts. Fitchburg's issue, as I understand, is not with our redistricting plans,
but with other portions of existing state law.
I believe that we shouldn't open the door to requests to re-write sec. 5.15 unless such a
request is occasioned by the creation of new legislative districts.
Agreed?
Ray
From: Joseph W. Handrick [mailto:JHandrick@reihhartlaw.com]
Sent: Friday, July 15, 201111:34AM
To: 'Shawn Pfaff; Taffora, Raymond P (22244)
Cc: 'Denise Solie'; 'Mark Sewell'
Subject: RE: Fitchburg Memo - Ward Reduction Amendment
Ray -
I just got off the phone with the mayor and was able to follow-up on the conversation he
and I had the other day.
I don't see any harm in their proposal to create a new exception to the minimal ward
requirement for municipalities with multiple school districts.
There are two distinct issues here involving Fitchburg: One involves the difficulty dealing
with multiple school districts and one involving a proposed legislative plan that requires
wards to be divided.
Produced 2/412013 (15 Emails)
EVANS 000))0
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 5 of 20
The issue with the school districts is likely pre-existing issue and is not triggered by S8
150 or the state redistricting map. If it is, in fact, triggered by S8 150 or the state
legislative plan, it is also fixed already by S8 150. Any ward division issues that are
triggered by the state redistricting map are addressed by S8 150 Section 4 which
permits the drawing of wards outside of the prescribed population ranges.
The language suggested by the city would seem to address this pre-existing issue by
adding an additional exception to current law for municipalities with multiple school
districts.
The other issue is
the proposed redistricting maps force the city to alter its
aldermanic seats or its efforts to create minority districts.
Please read the attached neWs article. This article suggests .that the state redistricting
minority districts. As I
plan and/or SB 150 is affecting the ability of the city to
understand it S8 150 or the state redistricting proposal does not, in any way, cause any
county or city to redraw any county supervisory or aldermanic district. In fact, S8 150
specifically allows wards to be drawn below the otherwise prescribed population
minimums to accommodate the state plan.
Referring to the memo from Jason Schmidt, he says "Ward 15 would be divided." If this
S8 150, then the city does
division is the result of the state redistricting proposal
would be able to drop the population of the multiple wards that are created below the
population threshold. If, however, he is
to the "old" ward 15 (in place since
2001) and the need to divide that because it is in 2 school districts, then the language
proposed by the city would fix that
http://host.madison.com/newsllocallgovt-and-politics/capitol-report/article e5c669geadc5-11 eO-a495-001 cc4c03286. html
In summary, I would encourage the committee to adopt the proposal from the city of
Produced 2/4/2013 (15 Emails)
EVANS 000111
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 6 of 20
Fitchburg as outline in the memo from Jason Schmidt.
From: Shawn Pfaff [mailto:Shawn.Pfaff@city.fitchburg.wi.us]
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 10:45 AM
To: rptaffora@michaelbest.com
Cc: Denise Solie; Mark Sewell
Subject: Fitchburg Memo - Ward Reduction Amendment
Ray:
It was great to see you the other day in the Capitol at the Redistricting hearing. I know
you've been following the issue closely.
As we discussed, we have a unique situation in Fitchburg (three school districts in our
city) when it comes to the minimum ward' requirement as I explained with my testimony.
I have attached a backgrounder memo prepared by our city legal and planning staff that
explains our issue and suggests our Simple remedy for it.
If we can get this simple addition added to S8 150, I think it will allow us to create
-majority minority" aldermanic districts in Fitchburg, which would truly represent the
diversity of our city for the next 10 years and the desire of our non-partisan, citizen
redistricting panel.
I have cc'd our city attorney Mark Sewell and our Redistricting Chair Alder Denis-e Solie
in case you have any technical questions.
I think our ask is not too heavy of a lift.
Thanks for your attention,
Shawn
(608)628-3275
Unless otherwt s e e xpres sly ind i cate d, ,i f t h i. s email, or any a tt a chme nt
hercto , c o ntains advice concerning any f e deral tax issue or
s ubmissi o n, ple ase be advised that the advice was not in t ended or
wri t ten to be used, and that it cannot be used, for the purpose of
a v o i d i ng fe de ral t a x penalties.
Produced 2/412013 (15 Emails)
EVANS 0001 12
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 7 of 20
The .i nformation contained in this communication may be confidential,
is intended only for the use of the recipient!s) named above, and may
be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, Or any of its
c ontent s , is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
c ommunicati o n in error, please return it to the sender immed i ately a nd
delete the original message and any copy of it from y o ur computer
Hys tem.
If y o u have any questionfi concerning this message, please
co ntact the sender.
Unless otherwi se expressly indicated, if this email, or any attachment
hereto, contains advice concerning any federal tax issue or
submission, please be advised that the advice was not intended or
written to be used, and that it cannot be used, for the purpose of
av o iding federal tax penalties.
The information contained in this communication may be confidential,
i s i ntended only for the use of the recipient(s) named ubove, and may
be legally privileged.
If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distdbu t.i on, o r copying of th i s communicat :i,on, oc any of i.ts
contents, i s s trictly prohibited.
If you have received this
c ommunicution in crror, please ceturn it to the sender immediutely and
delete the or..iginal message and uny copy of it from your computer
system.
If you have any questions concerning this message, please
contact the sender.
Any advice expressed in this writing as to tax matters was neither written nor Intended by the sender or
ReinhartBoemer Van Deuren s.c. to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of
avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. If any such tax advice is made to any person
or party other than to our client to whom the advice is dlrecied and intended, then the advice expressed is
being delivered to support the promotion or marketing (by a person other than Reinhart Boemer Van
Deuren s.c.) of the transaction or matter discussed or referenced. Each taxpayer should seek advice
based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances framan independent tax advisor.
This e-mail and any attachments may contain privileged or confidential information. This e-mail is
intended solely for \he use of the Individual or entity to which it Is addressed, If you are not the intended
recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution, dissemination or action
taken in relation to the contents of this e-mail and any of its attachments is strictly prohibited aOd may be
unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in eiTor, please notify the sender immediately and pennanenUy
delete the original e-mail and destroy any copies or printouts of this e-mail as well as any attachments. To
the extent representations are made herein conceming mailers of a client of the finn. be advised that
such representations are not those of the client and do not purport to bind them.
Produced 2/412013 (15 Emails)
EVANS 000113
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 8 of 20
To:
Taffora, Raymond P (22244)[rplaffora@michaelbest.com]: tottman[tottman@gmail.com]:
adamfoltz@gmail.com[adamfoltz@gmail.com]: jhandrick@reinhartlaw.comUhandrick@reinharllaw.com]
Cc:
McLeod, Eric M (22257}[EMMcleod@michaelbest.com)
From:
Jim Troupis
Sent
Man 7/18120111 :40:22 PM
Subject RE: Fitchburg Memo - Ward Reduction Amendment
Per all the subsequent em ails, I also agree. As we discussed yesterday on a much more
important issue in Milwaukee on the districts themselves, the legislation is final absent
some catastrophic potential result.
Jim
James R. Troupis
Troupis Law Office llC
jrtroupis@troupislawoffice.com .
ph. 608-807-4096
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential and privileged
material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of
this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the
original and any copies bf this email and any attachments thereto.
From: Taffora, Raymond P (22244) {mailto:rptaffora@michaelbest.coml
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 8:02 AM
To: tottman; adamfoltz@gmail.com; Jim Troupis; jhaOdrick@reinhartlaw.com
Cc: McLeod, Eric M (22257)
Subject: FW: Fitchburg' Memo - Ward Reduction Amendment
Guys:
See below. Fitchburg has this request outstanding and we must decide whether to "fix"
Fitchburg's issue by a Senate floor amendment or not.
Produced 21412013 (IS Emails)
EVANS 000114
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 9 of 20
In my view, unless the problem that Fitchburg has is occasioned by the creation of new
state legislative districts, then we should decline Fitchburg's request. We have been
saying all along that SB 150's "surgery" on the local redistricting process is confined to
allowing the municipalities to fix ward divisions occasioned by the state's new
legislativedistricts. Fitchburg's issue, as I understand, is not with our redistricting plans,
but with other portions of existing state law.
I believe that we shouldn't open the door to requests to re-write sec. 5.15 unless such a
request is occasioned by the creation of new legislative districts.
Agreed?
Ray
From: Joseph W. Handrick (mailto:JHandrick@reinhartlaw.comJ
Sent: Friday, July 15, 201111:34AM
To: 'Shawn Pfaff; Taffora, Raymond P (22244)
Cc: 'Denise Solie'; 'Mark Sewell'
Subject: RE: Fitchburg Memo - Ward Reduction Amendment
Ray-
I just got off the phone with the mayor and was able to follow-up on the conversation he
and I had the other day.
I don't see any harm in their proposal to create a new exception to the minimal ward
requirement for municipalities with multiple school districts.
Produced 2/412013 (15 Emails)
EVANS 000115
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 10 of 20
There are two distinct issues here involving Fitchburg: One involves the difficulty dealing
with multiple school districts and one involving a proposed legislative plan that requires
wards to be divided.
The issue with the school districts is likely pre-existing issue and is not triggered by SB
150 or the state redistricting map. If it is, in fact, triggered by SB 150 or the state
legislative plan, it is also fixed already by SB 150. Any ward division issues that are
triggered by the state redistricting map are addressed by SB 150 Section 4 which
permits the drawing of wards outside of the prescribed population ranges.
The language suggested by the city would seem to address this pre-existing issue by
adding an additional exception to current law for municipalities with multiple school
districts.
The other issue is whether the proposed redistricting maps force the city to alter its
aldermanic seats or its efforts to create minority districts.
Please read the attached news article. This artiCle suggests that the state redistricting
plan and/or SB 150 is affecting the ability of the city to create minoritY districts. As I
understand it S8 150 or the state redistricting proposal does not, in any way, cause any
county or city to redraw any county supervisory or aldermanic district In fact, S8 150
allows wards to be (jrawn below the otherwise
population
minimums to accommodate the state plan.
Referring to the memo from Jason Schmidt, he says "Ward 15 would be divided. n If this
division is the result ()f the state redistricting proposal andior SB 150, then the city does
would be able to drop the population of the multiple wards that are created below the
population threshold. If, however, he is referring to the "old" ward 15 (in place since
2001) and the need to divide that because it is in 2 school districts, then the language
proposed by the city would fix that.
http://host.madison.com/newsllocallgovt-and-poJitics/capitoJ-report/article e5c669geadc5-11 eO-a495-001 cc4c03286. html
Produced 2/4/2013 (15 Emails)
EVANS 000116
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 11 of 20
In summary, I would encourage the committee to adopt the proposal from the city of
Fitchburg as outline in the memo from Jason Schmidt.
From: Shawn Pfaff [mailto:Shawn .Pfaff@citv.frtchburg .wLus]
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 10:45 AM
To: rptaffora@michaelbest.com
Cc: Denise Solie; Mark Sewell
Subject: Fitchburg Memo - Ward Reduction Amendment
Ray:
It was great to see you the other day in the Capitol at the Redistricting hearing. I know
you've been following the issue closely.
As we discussed, we have a unique situation in Fitchburg (three school districts in our
city) when it comes to the minimum ward requirement as I explained with my testimony.
I have attached a backgrounder memo prepared by our city legal and pianning staff that
explains our issue and suggests our simple remedy for it.
If we can get this simple addition added to S8 150, I think it wiil ailow us to create
"majority minority" aldermanic districts in Fitchburg, which would truly represent the
diversity of our city for the next 10 years and the desire of our non-partisan, citizen
redistricting panel.
I have cc'd our city attorney Mark Sewell and our Redistricting Chair Alder Denise Solie
in case you have any technical questions.
I think our ask is not too heavy of a lift.
Thanks for your attention,
Shawn
(608)628-3275
Produced 2/4/2013(15 Emails)
EVANS 000117
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 12 of 20
Unless otherwise expressly indicated, i f this email, Dr any attachme nt
heret o , contains advice concerning any federal tax issue or
s u bmissi o n, please be advised that the advice was not intended o r
written to be u s ed, and that i t cannot be used, for the p u rpose o f
avoiding federal tax penalties.
The information contained in this communication may be confidential,
i s inte nded only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may
be legally privileged.
If the reader of this message is no t the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, o r copying of this communication, or any of its
contents, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received t his
communication in error, please return it to the sender immedintely and
delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer:
system.
If you have any questions concerning this message, pl ease
contact the sender.
Produced 2/412013 (15 Emails)
EVANS 000 118
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 13 of 20
To:
Taffora, Raymond P (22244)[rplaffora@michaelbest.comj
Cc:
adamfollz@gmail.com[adamfollz@gmail.comj: Jim TroupisUrtroupis@lroupislawoffice.com):
jhandrick@reinhartlaw.comUhandrick@reinhartlaw.com]: McLeod, Eric M
(22257)[EMMcleod@michaelbeslcom]
From:
lottman
Sent
Mon 7/18/20111:14:29 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Fitchburg Memo - Ward Reduction Amendment
Agreed.
There are other outstanding issues that we have elected not to address because the
problems were not created by the new districts. Most prominent is the issue of prisons
with populations larger than allowed by the maximum ward limits. If we were to address
Fitchburg's additional concerns with current law, I don't know that we have a good
answer for not addressing other concerns like prison populations.
Tad
On Mon, Ju118, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Taffora, Raymond P (22244)
<rptaffora@michaelbest.com> wrote:
Guys:
See below. Fitchburg has this request outstanding and we must decide whether to
"fix" Fitchburg's issue by a Senate floor amendment or not.
In my view, unless the problem that Fitchburg has is occasioned by the creation of
new state legislative districts, then we should decline Fitchburg's request. We have
been saying all along that S8 150's "surgery" on the local redistricting process is
confined to allowing the municipalities to fix ward divisions occasioned by the state's
new legislativedistricts. Fitchburg's issue, as I understand, is not with our redistricting
plans, but with other portions of existing state law.
I believe that we shouldn't open the door to requests to re-write sec. 5.15 unless
such a request is occasioned by the creation of new legislative districts.
Agreed?
Produced 21412013 (15 Emails)
EVANS 000119
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 14 of 20
Ray
From: Joseph W. Handrick [mailto:JHandrick@reinhartlaw.coml
Sent: Friday. July 15. 2011 11 :34 AM
To: 'Shawn Pfaff; Taftora, Raymond P (22244)
Cc: 'Denise Solie'; 'Mark Sewell'
Subject: RE: Fitchburg Memo - Ward Reduction Amendment
Ray-
I just got oft the phone with the mayor and was able to follow-up on the conversation
he and I had the other day.
I don't see any harm in their proposal to create a new exception to the minimal ward
requirement for municipalities with multiple school districts.
There are two distinct issues here involving Fitchburg: One involves the difficulty
legislative plein
dealing with multiple school districts and one in\iolvinga
that requires wards to be divided.
The issue with the school districts is likely pre-existing issue and is not triggered by
S8 150 or the state redistricting map. If it is, in fact, triggerecl by S8 150 or the state
legislative plan, it is also fIXed already by S8 150. Any ward division issues that are
triggered by the state redistricting map are addressed by S8 150 Section 4 which
permits the drawing of wards outside of the prescribed population ranges.
The language suggested by the city would seem to address this pre-existing issue
by adding an additional exception to current law for municipalities with multiple
Produced 2/4/2013 (15 Emails)
EVANS 000120
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 15 of 20
school districts.
The other issue is whether the proposed redistricting maps force the city to alter its
aldermanic seats or its efforts to create minority districts.
Please read the attached news article. This article suggests that the state
redistricting plan and/or S8 150 is affecting the ability of the city to create minority
districts. As I understand itS8 150 or the state redistricting proposal does not, in any
way, cause any county or city to redraw any county supervisory or aldermanic
district. In fact, S8 150 specifically allows wards to be drawn below the otherwise
prescribed population minimums to accommodate the state plan.
Referring to the memo from Jason Schmidt, he says "Ward 15 would be divided." If
this division is the result of the state redistricting proposal and/or S8 150, then the
city does would be able to drop the population of the multiple wards that are created
below the population threshold. If, however, he is referring to the "old" ward 15 (in
place since 2001) and the need to divide that because it is in 2 school districts, then
the language proposed by the city would fix that.
hltp:llhost.madison.com/news/Iocallgovt-and-politics/capitoI-report/article e5c669geadc5-11 eO-a495-00 1cc4c03286. html
In summary, I would encourage the committee to adopt the proposal from the city of
Fitchburg as outline in the memo from Jason Schmidt.
Produced 2/4/2013 (IS Emails)
EVANS 000121
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 16 of 20
From: Shawn Pfaff [mailto:Shawn.Pfaff@city.fitchburg.wLus]
Sent: Friday, July 15, 201110:45AM
To: rotaffora@michaelbest.com
Cc: Denise Solie; Mark Sewell
Subject: Fitchburg Memo - Ward Reduction Amendment
Ray:
It was great to see you the other day in the Capitol at the Redistricting hearing. I
know you've been following the issue closely.
As we discussed, we have a unique situation in Fitchburg (three school districts in
our city) when it conies to the minimum ward requirement as I explained with my
testimony. I have attached a backgrounder memo prepared by our city legal and
planning staff that explains our issue and suggests our simple remedy for it.
If we can get this simple addition added to S8 150, I think it will allow us to create
"majority minority" aldermanic districts in Fitchburg, which would truly represent the
diversity of our city for the next 10 years and the desire of our non-partisan, citizen
redistricting panel.
I have cc'd our city attorney Mark Sewell and our Redistricting Chair Alder Denise
Solie in case you have any technical questions.
I think our ask is not too heavy 01a lift.
Thanks for your attention,
Shawn
(608)628-3275
Unless otherwise expressly indicated, if this email, or any attachment
hereto, contains advice concerning any federal tax issue or
submission, please be advised that the advice was not intended or
written to be used, and that it cannot be used, for the purpose of
avoiding federal tax
The informalion contained in this communication may becollLi delltial,
is intended only for the uoe o f the recipinnt(s) named abov e , and may
be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not t.he
intended recipient, you are hereby notifjed t.hat any djssemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its
contents, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this
communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and
delete the o riginal message and any copy of it from your computer
system.
If you have any questions concerning this message, please
co ntact the sender.
Produced 2/4/2013 (15 Emails)
EVANS 000122
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 17 of 20
To:
Tatfora, Raymond P (22244)[rptaffora@michaelbest.com); McLeod, Eric M
(22257)[EMMcleod@michaelbesl.com): tOllman[toUman@gmaH.com): adam follz[adamfoltz@gmall.com)
From:
Jim Troupis
Sent:
Wed 7/13/20111:37:16 PM
Subject: RE: Zeua Rodriguez on Maps and Mke County Redistricting
First, the districts have not yet been approved in Milwaukee for the wards and
supervisory districts, have they? So while negotiation of those are still ongoing the
timing is actually a positive.
Second, all 150 affects is ward boundaries, it does affect the ultimate configuration of
local aldermanic or supervisory districts. It may well be that the wards of several
legislative districts will be combined for the local electoral districts. Nothing requires the
lines match.
Third, just draw smaller wards at the local level and then combine them in whatever way
they want.
I don't have a clue what he is talking about when he says they must oppose both in
Court. Per above, that does not make sense.
Jim
James R Troupis
Troupis Law Office LLC
jrtroupis@troupislawoffice.com
ph. 608-807-4096
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential and privileged
material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of
this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
intended reCipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the
original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
From: Taffora, Raymond P (22244) [mailto:rptaffora@michaelbest.comJ
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 8:09 AM
To: Jim Troupis: McLeod, Eric M (22257); tottman: adam foltz
Produced 2/4/2013 (15 Emails)
EVANS 000123
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 18 of 20
Subject: FW: Zeua Rodriguez on Maps and Mke County Redistricting
See below for comments by Jesus Rodriguez, one of the Mke-area Hispanic leaders, on
his support for the MALDEF alternative map and his concern about the municipal
redistricting process under 58 150. Any suggestions on the 58150 issue Zeus raises?
Thanks.
From: RodriguezWl [mailto:zeus@rodriguezwLcomJ
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 20116:59 PM
To: Taffora, Raymond P (22244)
Subject: Re: Test
Ray,
I know the focus is 100% on the State right now but if SB 150 doesn't allow for major
revisions of municipal redistricting after the initial tentative plan has been passed. Then
what we are doing at the County level will be for nothing and we will have to sue both
the county AND the state based on the fact that the County's tentative plan
disenfranchises the Latino community. I can give you the details later. Maybe we can
find out if a stipulation can be added to the bill for exceptions like ours. Not only are we
fighting for proper Hispanic Representation but also to keep Republican Supervisor Joe
Rice's district intact.
Again, I know it's all about the State, butwe really need to figure something out with SB
150 ASAP. Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you and I will get you our letter of support tomorrow in favor if 60/54
Zeus
Produced 21412013 (IS Emails)
EVANS 000124
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 19 of 20
Agnus Dei, qui toUis peccata Mundi.
On Jul12, 2011, at 18:22, "Taftora, Raymond P (22244)" <rptaffora@michaelbest.com>
wrote:
Raymond P. Taftora
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
1 South Pinckney Street, Suite 700
Madison, WI. 53703
(608) 257-3501
(608) 283-2244 (Direct)
rptaffora@michaelbest.com
.+ • • • • • • • • • • • •
* ••••••••••••• ••••• ++ • • • • • • • • • • • + • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Unless otherwise expressly indicated, if this email·, or any attachment
hereto, contains advice concerning any federal tax issue or
submission, please be advised that the advice was not intended or
written to be used, and that it cannot be used, for the purpose of
avoiding federal tax penalties.
'l'he inlormation contained in this commun.icat i on may be c o nfi.dent ial ,
is intended o nly for the use of the recipient(s) named above, nnd ml'lY
be legally prIvileged.
If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are he.reby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, o r copying of this communication, or any of its
c o ntents, Is strictly prohIbited.
If you have received thIs
communication in error, pi ease return it to the sender immediately and
delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer
system.
If you have any questions concerning this message, please
c ontact the sender.
Produced 2/412013 (IS Emails)
EVANS 000125
Case: 3:15-cv-00421-bbc Document #: 116-8 Filed: 05/02/16 Page 20 of 20
" •• , .... ,..".I ...... It" •• "IIJr''''' ..... ." ....... II .... ' •••••••••••
Unl ess ot he rwise expre s sly indicated, i f t hi s email, o r il ny at tdc hmt:;n t.
he re t o ,
advice
a ny feder al t ax iss ue o r
s ubmis s i o n, p lease be advised that t lw ddvice was not i n tended o r
wri t ten t u be used, dnd that it cannot be used, for the p u rpost:; of
a vo idi ng f e deral t a x penalties.
The information c ontained in this communication may be confidential,
is intended only for the use of the recipient Is) named above, and may
be l e gally privileged.
If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its
contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communi c ati on in error, please return it to the sender i.mme diat.e.1y ilnd
delete the o riginal me s s age and any copy o f it from you r compu t e r
s yst em. If yo u ha ve allY questions c onc erning thi s me<;$iH,." p.1ease
con t a c t the s ender.
Produced 2/4/2013 (15 Emails)
EVANS 000126