Federal Habeas Review of State Court Convictions: Incoherent Law but an Essential Right

I thank the editors of the Maine Law Review for the opportunity to participate in a discussion about the present state of post-conviction review of criminal convictions. This discussion is important and timely both because the quality of the procedures by which state prisoners can obtain post-conviction review varies greatly from state to state and because state prisoners who seek federal court review of their constitutional claims by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus face many obstacles. As a federal district judge, my experience is primarily with the later problem. Thus, in this article, I will offer a few comments about federal habeas corpus as it applies to prisoners who are in state custody as the result of a enlightened states that does not have a death penalty, my experience with habeas corpus is limited to non-capital cases, and, for that reason, I will focus primarily on such cases

How Big Money Ruined Public Life in Wisconsin

This Article discusses how Wisconsin fell from grace. Once a model good government state that pioneered many democracy-enhancing laws, in a very short time, Wisconsin became a state where special interest money, most of which is undisclosed, dominates politics. This Article identifies several factors as being critical to Wisconsin’s descent. These include the state’s failure to nurture and build on the campaign finance reforms enacted in the 1970s and both the state’s and the United States Supreme Court’s failure to adequately regulate sham issue ads. As evidence of Wisconsin’s diminished status, this Article describes how several of the state’s most progressive laws have been undermined and how each of the three branches of the state’s government has been beset by scandal related to the increased importance of special interest money. Finally, this Article suggests that major change will come about only in the long term; such change will require both new campaign finance reforms and a shift in approach by the United States Supreme Court