% >> THE FIELD FOR THE UPCOMING
% SUPREME COURT ELECTION HAS BEEN
% NARROWED DOWN TO TWO CANDIDATES,
% AND THEY ARE A STUDY IN
% CONTRASTS.% ONE OF THE BIGGE
ST DIFFERENCES
% IS HOW THEY VIEW PAST DECISIONS
% BY THE COURT.
% OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS,
% "HERE AND NOW" POLITICAL
% REPORTER ZAC SCHULTZ WILL TAKE
% US THROUGH SOME OF THE MOST
% SIGNIFICANT CASES OF THE PAST
% FEW YEARS AND SHOW US WHETHER
% THESE CANDIDATES AGREED WITH THE
% DECISIONS.
% TONIGHT, WE LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF
% REDISTRICTING.
% >> ON APRIL 4th, VOTERS WILL
% CHOOSE BETWEEN JANET
% PROTASIEWICZ AND DANIEL KELLY
% AND DETERMINE THE FUTURE
% IDEOLOGICAL BALANCE OF THE
% WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.
% BUT THAT SAME ELECTION WILL
% DETERMINE WHETHER THE COURT WILL
% LOOK BACKWARDS AS WELL.
% >> SO THAT'S WHEN I SAY, YES,
% THOSE MAPS ARE RIGGED.
% >> PROTASIEWICZ HAS MADE CLEAR
% SHE BELIEVES WISCONSIN'S
% LEGISLATIVE MAPS ARE
% GERRYMANDERED IN FAVOR OF
% REPUBLICANS AND SAID THE
% WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT ERRED
% TWICE ON ITS PATH TO APPROVING
% THOSE MAPS.
% THE FIRST ERROR CAME IN 2021
% WHEN COURT'S CONSERVATIVE
% MAJORITY ANNOUNCED THEY WOULD
% NOT DRAW NEW LEGISLATIVE
% BOUNDARIES BUT WOULD INSTEAD
% CHOOSE FROM MAPS SUBMITTED BY
% GOVERNOR TONY EVERS AND THE
% REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE.
% THE BEST MAP, ACCORDING TO THE
% COURT, WAS ONE THAT KEPT THE NEW
% BOUNDARIES AS CLOSE TO THE
% CURRENT BOUNDARIES AS POSSIBLE
% SO IS TO HAVE THE FEWEST NUMBER
% OF VOTERS SWITCH LEGISLATIVE
% DISTRICTS.%IT WAS CALLED THE
LEAST CHANGED
% METHODOLOGY, A NEW PRECEDENT
% INVENTED BY THE COURT.
% >> THERE'S NO LEGAL PRECEDENT.
% THERE'S NOTHING IN THE
% CONSTITUTION.%THERE'S NOTHIN
G IN CASE LAW.
% YOU GET THIS LEAST CHANGE RULE
% THAT, QUITE FRANKLY, IF YOU TALK
% TO AN UNEDUCATED VOTER ABOUT IT,
% THEY MIGHT SAY, "YOU KNOW, IT
% SOUNDS LIKE IT KIND OF MAKES
% SENSE, KIND OF ON ITS FACE MAKES
% SENSE, KEEPING THE DISTRICTS
% TOGETHER."%>> HOWEVER, LEAST
CHANGE ONLY
% EXPECTED IN THE ADVANTAGE
% REPUBLICANS DREW FOR THEMSELVES
% 10 YEARS AGO.
% EVEN THE LEAST CHANGE MAP
% SUBMITTED BY GOVERNOR EVERS
% STILL CREATED DISTRICTS THAT
% ENSURED REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IN
% THE LEGISLATURE.
% >> THIS IS WHERE I SAY DEMOCRACY
% IS ON THE LINE.
% YOU LOOK AT THE FACT THAT THE
% MAPS WERE, YOU KNOW, 10 YEARS
% AGO, A PROBLEM.
% I WOULD SAY THAT THE MAPS ARE A
% BIGGER PROBLEM.
% YOU'LL HEAR PEOPLE ARGUE THAT
% THE REPUBLICANS USED VERY, VERY
% SOPHISTICATED COMPUTER
% TECHNOLOGY TO DRAW THOSE MAPS
% AND TO DRAW THOSE MAPS IN A WAY
% THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY THE MOST
% FAVORABLE TO THEM, SO THAT'S
% WHEN I SAY, YES, THOSE MAPS ARE
% RIGGED.
% >> DANIEL KELLY SERVED ON THE
% COURT FROM 2016 UNTIL HE LOST
% RE-ELECTION IN 2020 AND WAS NOT
% ON THE BENCH WHEN THE COURT
% DECIDED THE REDISTRICTING CASE.
% HOWEVER, HE SAYS THEIR DECISION
% MAKES SENSE.
% >> AND SO THE PHRASE, LEAST
% CHANGE, IS MEANT TO ENCOMPASS
% THE IDEA THAT WE TAKE THE MAPS
% AS THEY'RE WRITTEN AND THEN WE
% LOOK FOR THE LEGAL ERRORS AND WE
% FIX THE LEGAL ERRORS AND WE
% LEAVE EVERYTHING ELSE THE SAME.
% >> PAST REDISTRICTING CASES WERE
% DECIDED IN FEDERAL COURT BUT
% REPUBLICANS WANTED THIS CASE
% BEFORE THE WISCONSIN SUPREME
% COURT.
% KELLY SAYS THE IDEA OF FAIRNESS
% IN THE MAPS IS A POLITICAL
% QUESTION, SOMETHING THE COURT
% MUST AVOID.
% >> THE MEMBERS OF THIS COURT
% HAVE NOT BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH
% MAKING POLITICAL DECISIONS, ONLY
% LEGAL DECISIONS.
% AND SO THEIR JOB IS JUST TO
% ADDRESS THOSE LEGAL
% IMPERFECTIONS IN THAT MAP, AND
% WHEN THEY'RE DONE ADDRESSING
% THOSE, IT IS TO STEP ASIDE AND
% THEN WAIT FOR THE PEOPLE OF
% WISCONSIN TO WORK ON THEIR
% LEGISLATURE AND THEIR GOVERNOR
% TO GET TO A MAP THAT IS
% POLITICALLY ACCEPTABLE TO THE
% STATE.
% >> IN THE SPRING OF 2022, USING
% THE LEAST CHANGE CRITERIA,
% JUSTICE BRIAN HAGEDORN JOINS THE
% THREE LIBERALS ON THE COURT TO
% CHOOSE TONE TO THE EAS TO TONYH
% INCLUDED AN ADDITIONAL ASSEMBLY
% SEAT IN THE MILWAUKEE AREA,
% SOMETHING THEY ARGUED WAS
% REQUIRED UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS
% ACT.
% REPUBLICANS APPEALED TO THE
% UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
% WHICH STRUCK DOWN THE MAPS,
% SAYING THERE WASN'T ENOUGH
% EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT INVOKING THE
% V.R.A.
% HAGEDORN DISWHROIND THE
% CONSERVATIVES IN PICKING THE
% REPUBLICAN DRAWN MAPS WHICH
% PROTASIEWICZ SAYS WAS THE
% COURT'S SECOND MAJOR ERROR AND
% SOMETHING SHE EXPECTS THE COURT
% TO REVISIT IF SHE WINS.
% >> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS IN
% THE DISSENT FROM THE SUPREME
% COURT REGARDING REDISTRICTING
% CASE, ESPECIALLY AFTER IT CAME
% BACK FROM THE SUPREME COURT, WAS
% THEY FELT THAT THE COURT COULD
% HOLD A TRIAL TO ACTUALLY
% DETERMINE WHETHER IT WAS
% WARRANTED TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL
% DISTRICT UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS
% ACT IN MILWAUKEE OR NOT.
% IS THAT AN ISSUE YOU WOULD
% EXPECT TO COME BACK BEFORE THE
% COURT GIVEN THAT THE DISSENT
% ALMOST ENVISIONED IT?
% >> I WOULD THINK SO.
% I WOULD THINK SO.
% >> REPORTING FROM MADISON, I'M