| Incumbent | Incumbent Web Page | Personal Web Page | Who funds the incumbent? |
|
Mark L. Pettis | Pettis' Personal Page | Follow the Money |
| Challenger | Challenger Web Page | Occupation | Contact |
![]() Ann Hraychuck (D) |
www.annforassembly.com |
PO Box 125 Balsam Lake, Wisconsin 54810 |
For a list of all candidates for state office go the State Elections Board and click on "All Candidates Registered."
(Many of those who did not reply simply do not want to go on record as supporting reforms they know they will vote against, and do not want to be held to their word. Others will say Yes and not mean it, or will vote as dictated by their party. It is up to constituents to hold their representatives to their word.)
| Assembly, District 28 | Question 1 | Question 2 | Question 3 | Question 4 | Question 5 | Question 6 |
| ** | ** | ** | Yes | No | Yes | |
| No Reply | No Reply | No Reply | No Reply | No Reply | No Reply |
** Convoluted or no answer; leaves lots of wiggle room.
Hraychuck: I have spent the last 32 years as law enforcement officer, and so my number one priority is public safety. We have a terrible methamphetamine epidemic gripping communities in Northwestern Wisconsin, and there is much work to be done at the state level to curb this devastating trend. Quality public education is also a priority, because the only way to shut off the faucet to the prison system is to give our kids the tools they need to become productive and successful citizens. Health care reform is very important to me, because I have seen too often what happens to children, families, and the elderly when they do not have access to quality and affordable health care.[…]
F - Universal Health Care |
Incumbent has not been supportive of universal health care, and receives significant campaign contributions from the health care community. |
F - Campaign Finance Reform |
Incumbent has done nothing to move campaign reform forward. |
A+ Ethics Reform |
Incumbent voted to pass an Ethics Reform bill (SB1). |
| Bill - SB1 (5/2/06 Sequence 662) aR+ | The Issue | How Assembly Voted | Your Representative |
Senate Bill 1 - Establish a Government Accountability BoardIntroduced by Mike Ellis (R) in the Senate and
It was killed by the Assembly Republicans. This was a vote on whether to bring the ethics bill to the floor and allow a complete up-or-down vote. By voting against an open floor vote the legislators effectively killed the bill and did not have to go on record as officially opposing ethics reform. Media coverage at MSP, Milwaukee, Madison, Madison
|
Proponents claim: This bill would establish an independent ethics commission to oversee the state legislature and governor.
See www.wisdc.org
|
Defeated by a vote of 51 to 45 Voting for reform:
Voting to block reform:
See entire assembly roll call vote here and the senate roll call here. |
+ + + + + + + * Incumbent voted FOR bringing SB1 to the floor for a vote (this was the vote preferred by reform advocates) + + + + + + + Caveat: Some Republicans were allowed to vote in favor of this reform bill because their vote was not needed to kill it and they were in unsafe seats with a challenger. |
|
Opponents claim: It is too intrusive, requiring the disclosure of personal finances.
(Isn't that what ethics is all about? How can they legitimately vote on an issue without disclosing any conflicts of interest?)
|
|
Republicans voting to pass to the floor for a vote: Almers, Davis, Hines, Lasee, McCormick (sponsor), Ott, and Pettis
From WDC: What's most notable about the three roll call votes is that several Republican members – including two considered politically vulnerable and likely facing tough reelection fights, Brett Davis of Monroe and Mark Pettis of Hertel, who originally voted to take up SB 1 – voted three times against making SB 1 part of the GOP "ethics reform" bills. Pettis is one of the Jensen 10 who were implicated during the former Assembly speaker's trial. All of the Jensen 10 voted consistently to block approval of SB 1.
Many politicians refuse to answer the questions in the Project Vote-Smart solicitation because they don't want voters knowing where they stand on the issues! They like being able to fudge and evade when being asked about an issue, and having it on record and posted on the web is the last thing they want. Especially when it can be compared to their voting record while in session.
Project Vote-Smart Rating |
INCUMBENT
REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO
PROVIDE ANY RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH THE 2004 NATIONAL
POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST Ratings by Interest Groups: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=CWI42438 Votes by Category: |
Wisconsin Conservation VotersRated Incumbent at 18% acceptance |
Conservation Scorecard on your state
representative
at: See also incumbent's committee scorecard at: |