He introduced his bill for a constitutional amendment to screw unions; a so-called "Right to Work" proposal.
He voted against economic development loans for demolition.
He voted against consumer protection.
See: Journal of the House - 106th Day - Friday, April 20, 2012 - Top of Page 8525
Either consult this page list, or just word search the day's work; search= Wardlow
page - action
8560 - Wardlow, Hancock, Quam, Leidiger, Drazkowski, Buesgens and Franson introduced: H. F. No. 3009, A bill for an act proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution, article I, by adding a section; establishing a freedom of employment. [Wardlow being chief author]
8590-91 - H. F. 2173, A bill for an act relating to consumer protection; clarifying the definition of home solicitation sale; amending Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 325G.06, subdivision 2. [Those who voted in the negative were: Buesgens; Drazkowski; Erickson; Hancock; Petersen, B.; Wardlow]
8592 - H. F. No. 1721, A bill for an act relating to economic development; authorizing redevelopment demolition loans; eliminating a semiannual report; establishing a small business advocate office in the Business Assistance Center; granting Albert Lea the authority to establish an industrial sewer charge rebate program; amending Minnesota Statutes 2010, sections 116J.555, subdivision 2; 116J.571; 116J.572; 116J.575, by adding a subdivision; 116J.66; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 116J. [Those who voted in the negative were: Anderson, B.; Bills; Buesgens; Doepke; Downey; Drazkowski; Garofalo; Lenczewski; Loon; McDonald; Petersen, B.; Quam; Scott; Wardlow]
The man broke the ranks of negative voting:
page - action
8594 - S. F. No. 1921, A bill for an act relating to health; requiring licensure of certain facilities that perform abortions; requiring a licensing fee; appropriating money; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 145. [Wardlow was a co-author of the House cognate - as all expected in the exercise, Dayton vetoed]
Are You Impressed?
The word troglodyte comes to mind. Voting in lockstep with counterproductive co-troglodytes. This, for AG? Please, no, nada, never.
That legislative day was very near end of session; it was chosen because it showed how Wardlow was hot to screw unions, to not enhance consumer protection; and to fart around on the abortion question because he and like-minded ones could; a certain veto being known in advance, but go ahead and grandstand. Throw red meat to the zealots.
It is a day where Wardlow showed true colors. Most troubling is the vote against strengthening consumer protection because it shows an anti-consumer mindset which would be pursued and likely implemented if he were to become Minnesota Attorney General. He would be anti-union and champing at the bit to mess with women's rights.
Do we want more of that orientation? A throwback fish in a bigger pond?
Vote Ellison.