1 00:00:01,301 --> 00:00:03,604 >> A gerrymandering arms race is happening around 2 00:00:03,670 --> 00:00:07,741 the country this year. Why not in Wisconsin? Also, how 3 00:00:07,808 --> 00:00:10,244 some big orders out of Washington could affect 4 00:00:10,310 --> 00:00:12,779 Wisconsin. And a look at the closing days of our 5 00:00:12,846 --> 00:00:16,316 state Supreme Court race. This is inside Wisconsin 6 00:00:16,383 --> 00:00:18,051 politics. 7 00:00:20,487 --> 00:00:24,191 I'm Shawn Johnson here with my colleagues, 8 00:00:24,258 --> 00:00:26,393 Anya van Wagtendonk Zac Schultz and Rich Cramer in 9 00:00:26,460 --> 00:00:29,563 Eau Claire. Hey, everyone. >> Hey. Hello. Hey. 10 00:00:29,630 --> 00:00:32,833 >> So Rich, there had been sort of this hope by 11 00:00:32,900 --> 00:00:36,069 Democrats that there was this one case in this 12 00:00:36,136 --> 00:00:39,206 courtroom in Madison that could potentially redraw 13 00:00:39,273 --> 00:00:42,576 the congressional lines ahead of the midterm 14 00:00:42,643 --> 00:00:46,180 elections. It seems like this courtroom said, no, 15 00:00:46,246 --> 00:00:48,515 that door is actually closed. What did they say 16 00:00:48,582 --> 00:00:51,818 this week? >> So they said that they 17 00:00:53,086 --> 00:00:55,989 don't really have the authority to do anything 18 00:00:56,056 --> 00:01:00,694 about the maps. The lawsuit is seeking a redraw because 19 00:01:00,761 --> 00:01:04,565 of some things that happened back in 2022. Well, 20 00:01:04,631 --> 00:01:08,135 the Supreme Court is the one that put those maps in 21 00:01:08,202 --> 00:01:13,040 effect, but the circuit court judges said that they 22 00:01:13,106 --> 00:01:16,844 just they can't overrule the Supreme Court. So 23 00:01:16,910 --> 00:01:20,080 essentially, they dismissed the case. And it seems all 24 00:01:20,147 --> 00:01:25,152 but likely that the current districts, which are held 25 00:01:25,219 --> 00:01:28,622 by six Republicans and two Democrats, will remain the 26 00:01:28,689 --> 00:01:30,457 same for the November election. 27 00:01:30,524 --> 00:01:33,160 >> And just kind of zooming out as to why this feels 28 00:01:33,227 --> 00:01:35,762 like it matters more at this moment in time, you 29 00:01:35,829 --> 00:01:39,032 have this redistricting battle going across the 30 00:01:39,099 --> 00:01:42,970 country where Republican states have redrawn their 31 00:01:43,036 --> 00:01:45,472 congressional maps to add more Republican seats. 32 00:01:45,539 --> 00:01:49,209 Democratic states have responded in kind. Where 33 00:01:49,276 --> 00:01:52,746 does this leave Wisconsin? Big picture. Zack, when it 34 00:01:52,813 --> 00:01:55,716 comes to what everything looks like here as part of 35 00:01:55,782 --> 00:01:58,886 that battle. to be operating under the 36 00:01:58,952 --> 00:02:02,589 same congressional lines Evers version of the maps, 37 00:02:02,656 --> 00:02:05,392 if you recall, under the old least change model, 38 00:02:05,459 --> 00:02:07,561 that the Supreme Court at that time run by 39 00:02:07,628 --> 00:02:10,063 conservatives, dictated this was Tony Evers version 40 00:02:10,130 --> 00:02:12,900 of the old Republican map, slightly adjusting them. 41 00:02:12,966 --> 00:02:14,801 The most competitive district remains the third, 42 00:02:14,868 --> 00:02:17,905 which is Western Wisconsin La Crosse and going up 43 00:02:17,971 --> 00:02:21,208 through Rich's area. And that race has been close 44 00:02:21,275 --> 00:02:24,011 for a few cycles. It will remain close this fall. 45 00:02:24,077 --> 00:02:27,147 Democrats across the possible pickup, but the 46 00:02:27,214 --> 00:02:30,050 rest of the districts, barring a huge wave, look 47 00:02:30,117 --> 00:02:32,786 like they're going to stay the way they've been. There 48 00:02:32,853 --> 00:02:34,821 were Democrats who were thinking Wisconsin could 49 00:02:34,888 --> 00:02:37,224 get in this redistricting game. Most of the states 50 00:02:37,291 --> 00:02:39,960 doing that around the country are doing that with 51 00:02:40,027 --> 00:02:42,563 one party rule, where the Democrats or Republicans 52 00:02:42,629 --> 00:02:45,766 control the entire state so they can do this mid-decade, 53 00:02:45,832 --> 00:02:47,801 even though they're not supposed to be. Wisconsin 54 00:02:47,868 --> 00:02:49,937 obviously doesn't have that. It would have had to go 55 00:02:50,003 --> 00:02:52,039 through the Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court 56 00:02:52,105 --> 00:02:55,042 has consistently said, we do not want to touch these 57 00:02:55,108 --> 00:02:58,378 congressional lines. They have been given options 58 00:02:58,445 --> 00:03:00,480 multiple times, and they've said no through original 59 00:03:00,547 --> 00:03:02,816 action. So that's why in this case, there were two 60 00:03:02,883 --> 00:03:04,818 different plaintiffs that said, how about we go 61 00:03:04,885 --> 00:03:06,920 through the local courts first and see if it can 62 00:03:06,987 --> 00:03:09,957 work the way up to the Supreme Court under a law 63 00:03:10,023 --> 00:03:12,259 passed by Scott Walker and the Republicans, that meant 64 00:03:12,326 --> 00:03:14,995 these changes had to go to this panel of three judges, 65 00:03:15,062 --> 00:03:17,130 and there were two panels created by the Supreme 66 00:03:17,197 --> 00:03:20,334 Court. One of them has said, well, we'll have a trial in 67 00:03:20,400 --> 00:03:22,970 April of 27. So a year away, obviously nowhere near in 68 00:03:23,036 --> 00:03:26,240 time for 26. The other one was the one that dismissed 69 00:03:26,306 --> 00:03:28,909 the case this week. The other panel that still has 70 00:03:28,976 --> 00:03:31,278 a case out there has not ruled on their motion to 71 00:03:31,345 --> 00:03:34,014 dismiss. It's possible that could get thrown out under 72 00:03:34,081 --> 00:03:36,149 the very same grounds. And it looks like at this time 73 00:03:36,216 --> 00:03:39,119 the floor is in the law that was passed that was 74 00:03:39,186 --> 00:03:41,255 supposed to hear this because it requires Supreme 75 00:03:41,321 --> 00:03:43,891 Court to set up these judges to do something. And 76 00:03:43,957 --> 00:03:46,093 the judges say it's not clear what we have the 77 00:03:46,159 --> 00:03:48,896 authority to do in this case, which is why they 78 00:03:48,962 --> 00:03:51,231 dismissed it yet another time where these this 79 00:03:51,298 --> 00:03:53,133 challenge will not get to the Supreme Court under 80 00:03:53,200 --> 00:03:55,569 this venue. >> To the dismay of many 81 00:03:55,636 --> 00:03:58,739 Democrats who said, hey, we have A43 majority on the 82 00:03:58,805 --> 00:04:01,141 Liberals do on the state Supreme Court. Let's try 83 00:04:01,208 --> 00:04:03,110 there. Maybe not the legislature this time 84 00:04:03,177 --> 00:04:06,146 because it's not going to go anywhere there or will 85 00:04:06,213 --> 00:04:09,049 it on you because, you know, some people may have heard 86 00:04:09,116 --> 00:04:12,419 about this push by Governor Tony Evers to ban partizan 87 00:04:12,486 --> 00:04:14,621 gerrymandering in Wisconsin. He's going to call a 88 00:04:14,688 --> 00:04:18,959 special session for that later this month. Just a 89 00:04:19,026 --> 00:04:22,429 thought exercise here. Could it work? Could that 90 00:04:22,496 --> 00:04:24,998 change the lines? >> I mean, if history is 91 00:04:25,065 --> 00:04:27,835 any guide, Evers special sessions don't often go 92 00:04:27,901 --> 00:04:30,537 anywhere, right? Republicans who control the 93 00:04:30,604 --> 00:04:32,840 legislature, they have to show up, but they gavel in 94 00:04:32,906 --> 00:04:35,776 and gavel out very often on his agenda. But there was 95 00:04:35,843 --> 00:04:38,679 actually maybe some signs that there could be 96 00:04:38,745 --> 00:04:43,050 something to this. So initially, first of all, 97 00:04:43,116 --> 00:04:45,219 Republicans did not sort of dismiss it out of hand, 98 00:04:45,285 --> 00:04:47,988 which was notable. Robin Vos said that he would be 99 00:04:48,055 --> 00:04:50,424 willing to negotiate on this last. I asked him 100 00:04:50,490 --> 00:04:53,227 about it a couple weeks ago. He said, like, it hasn't 101 00:04:53,293 --> 00:04:55,562 come up yet. So it's possible that a deal kind 102 00:04:55,629 --> 00:04:58,365 of won't be brokered. But when I've spoken to experts 103 00:04:58,432 --> 00:05:01,201 about it, what they say is that because of the redrawn 104 00:05:01,268 --> 00:05:04,805 state maps of two years ago, kind of GOP guaranteed hold 105 00:05:04,872 --> 00:05:08,408 of the legislature is no longer so guaranteed. And 106 00:05:08,475 --> 00:05:11,778 so both parties would need to kind of map out the 2026 107 00:05:11,845 --> 00:05:14,815 elections, the 2028 elections, the 2030 108 00:05:14,882 --> 00:05:17,384 elections going back and forth. And so because of 109 00:05:17,451 --> 00:05:19,953 that, it's not clear that gerrymandering in Wisconsin 110 00:05:20,020 --> 00:05:23,056 is beneficial to either party in a way that in 111 00:05:23,123 --> 00:05:25,926 California or Florida, it is guaranteed sort of 112 00:05:25,993 --> 00:05:28,729 beneficial to one party or another because we have 113 00:05:28,795 --> 00:05:31,031 divided government and these super, super close 114 00:05:31,098 --> 00:05:33,300 elections, because we are so purple. Gerrymandering 115 00:05:33,367 --> 00:05:35,202 is not necessarily beneficial to either side. 116 00:05:35,269 --> 00:05:38,172 So maybe getting rid of it altogether is actually the 117 00:05:38,238 --> 00:05:41,175 politically better choice. >> But as a constitutional 118 00:05:41,241 --> 00:05:44,344 amendment in the year 2026, not going to happen because 119 00:05:44,411 --> 00:05:46,613 it just it takes too long. >> Well, certainly. Right. 120 00:05:46,680 --> 00:05:49,349 So it won't affect the midterms in any kind of way. 121 00:05:49,416 --> 00:05:52,119 But if there were any kind of like negotiation there 122 00:05:52,186 --> 00:05:54,555 and constitutional bit longer, and Republicans 123 00:05:54,621 --> 00:05:57,224 have said they don't agree with sort of the language 124 00:05:57,291 --> 00:05:59,326 that Evers has put forward, that it's too vague and 125 00:05:59,393 --> 00:06:01,528 it's too broad. So there's all these details that 126 00:06:01,595 --> 00:06:04,364 would need to get hashed out. But I think this kind 127 00:06:04,431 --> 00:06:06,366 of broader conversation, knowing that voters pretty 128 00:06:06,433 --> 00:06:09,870 categorically, regardless gerrymandering. They don't 129 00:06:09,937 --> 00:06:12,406 subject to gerrymandering. It could be a really 130 00:06:12,472 --> 00:06:14,474 interesting issue to kind of be in the water during 131 00:06:14,541 --> 00:06:16,643 this election year. >> But just to be clear, 132 00:06:16,710 --> 00:06:19,479 the most important thing for viewers to know is that 133 00:06:19,546 --> 00:06:21,648 even if a deal somehow got passed like the Hail Mary 134 00:06:21,715 --> 00:06:24,718 of all Hail Mary's for gerrymandering reform, it 135 00:06:24,785 --> 00:06:27,988 maps. The next time this would come up would be 136 00:06:28,055 --> 00:06:31,825 redistricting in 2032 after the 30 census. So these 137 00:06:31,892 --> 00:06:33,760 maps would be locked in place. The only way they're 138 00:06:33,827 --> 00:06:35,829 going to change, barring the Wisconsin Supreme Court, 139 00:06:35,896 --> 00:06:38,732 is if Democrats win a trifecta this fall, then 140 00:06:38,799 --> 00:06:41,401 they would actually have one party rule to do what 141 00:06:41,468 --> 00:06:43,737 we've seen in these other states. But otherwise, it's 142 00:06:43,804 --> 00:06:45,939 not going to happen. >> So what about that other 143 00:06:46,006 --> 00:06:47,975 case, though? You alluded to it, Rich. You're 144 00:06:48,041 --> 00:06:51,712 familiar with this case. It's been filed by law 145 00:06:51,778 --> 00:06:55,415 forward. And it just took a different approach to this 146 00:06:55,482 --> 00:06:58,952 redistricting question. >> Yeah, I'd say it's 147 00:06:59,019 --> 00:07:01,321 slightly different approach. It's kind of getting at the 148 00:07:01,388 --> 00:07:05,959 same thing. The the overall complaint is that the 149 00:07:06,493 --> 00:07:09,563 districts are designed to favor incumbents. So that's 150 00:07:09,630 --> 00:07:11,899 slightly different than the argument that, well, 151 00:07:11,965 --> 00:07:14,268 Republicans drew the districts to favor 152 00:07:14,334 --> 00:07:18,272 Republicans, but it's in a lot of ways very similar. 153 00:07:18,338 --> 00:07:22,809 So that case is proceeding. The parties in the lawsuit 154 00:07:22,876 --> 00:07:27,214 seem to be more amicable with one another. They've 155 00:07:27,281 --> 00:07:31,118 all agreed on these court dates that will start in 156 00:07:31,185 --> 00:07:33,854 2027. So again, that's not going to result in any 157 00:07:33,921 --> 00:07:36,256 changes to the congressional map in 158 00:07:36,323 --> 00:07:39,026 Wisconsin before November. And if it's not thrown out 159 00:07:39,092 --> 00:07:41,628 on the same grounds that the other case was 160 00:07:41,695 --> 00:07:43,363 dismissed, it'll be interesting to see how that 161 00:07:43,430 --> 00:07:45,766 plays out before the three judge panel. 162 00:07:45,832 --> 00:07:47,835 >> Yeah, I would say there's a pretty good 163 00:07:47,901 --> 00:07:50,771 chance that we are going to. While it is not really a 164 00:07:50,838 --> 00:07:53,774 scheduled thing to do in 2027, I think we're going 165 00:07:53,841 --> 00:07:56,410 to be talking about this map in 2027. I mean, we 166 00:07:56,476 --> 00:08:00,781 just think about what wins elections in Wisconsin or 167 00:08:00,848 --> 00:08:03,684 anywhere from a party's perspective. Well, you got 168 00:08:03,750 --> 00:08:06,553 You still have to have that. You got to have a message. 169 00:08:06,620 --> 00:08:09,456 Voters like you got to have money. But what is maybe 170 00:08:09,523 --> 00:08:12,593 more powerful than all of those lines and districts 171 00:08:12,659 --> 00:08:15,495 that favor you, you change the math because you can't 172 00:08:15,562 --> 00:08:18,699 win in a district where you have those other three. If 173 00:08:18,765 --> 00:08:22,169 the voters are tilted to the other side. So I think 174 00:08:22,236 --> 00:08:24,838 in this hyper partizan era, they're definitely going to 175 00:08:24,905 --> 00:08:28,108 be talking about this in 2027, whether it is in the 176 00:08:28,175 --> 00:08:31,245 legislature with Democrats in power or the Supreme 177 00:08:31,311 --> 00:08:34,882 Court, where A43 majority for Liberals now could 178 00:08:34,948 --> 00:08:36,984 potentially be five two next year, we just don't 179 00:08:37,050 --> 00:08:40,654 know. So I think that's something that like, 180 00:08:40,721 --> 00:08:43,223 obviously is going to be on our radar for a while. 181 00:08:43,290 --> 00:08:45,359 >> Redistricting is always in play in Wisconsin, and 182 00:08:45,425 --> 00:08:48,128 it'll never be a topic that we're not interested in. 183 00:08:48,195 --> 00:08:50,364 It's not not not relevant. >> That's right. We don't 184 00:08:50,430 --> 00:08:53,166 have to wait for the next census. I'm feeling so from 185 00:08:53,233 --> 00:08:56,436 voting maps to voting rich, there was also this big 186 00:08:56,503 --> 00:08:59,873 executive order from President Trump this week 187 00:08:59,940 --> 00:09:02,776 dealing with mail in voting. What did the president call 188 00:09:02,843 --> 00:09:06,013 for there? >> He called for some very 189 00:09:06,079 --> 00:09:09,983 sweeping changes, essentially a federal 190 00:09:10,551 --> 00:09:15,189 overhaul and a lot more participation from the 191 00:09:15,255 --> 00:09:20,260 regard to voting lists and and absentee voting. So the 192 00:09:21,328 --> 00:09:24,498 executive order directs federal agencies to create 193 00:09:24,565 --> 00:09:27,968 lists of U.S. citizens who are eligible, eligible to 194 00:09:28,035 --> 00:09:31,405 vote in every state, including Wisconsin. And 195 00:09:31,471 --> 00:09:35,309 then it also directs the U.S. Postal Service to not 196 00:09:35,375 --> 00:09:38,879 send any mail in ballots to people who aren't on those 197 00:09:38,946 --> 00:09:43,650 lists, and it would just give the President Donald 198 00:09:43,717 --> 00:09:46,153 Trump's administration a lot of power over who gets 199 00:09:46,220 --> 00:09:50,457 to vote and who doesn't. So it's likely to wind up in 200 00:09:50,524 --> 00:09:55,262 court. In fact, a lawsuit has already been filed. 201 00:09:55,329 --> 00:09:57,698 There's a lot of questions about whether the president 202 00:09:57,764 --> 00:10:02,302 can can do this. And that's what we're going to see the 203 00:10:02,369 --> 00:10:05,906 different parties in the lawsuit argue. So it's it's 204 00:10:05,973 --> 00:10:08,542 a big change that's been proposed, but it's just an 205 00:10:08,609 --> 00:10:10,611 executive order. So it doesn't carry the same kind 206 00:10:10,677 --> 00:10:13,080 of weight as a congressional act or 207 00:10:13,146 --> 00:10:15,716 something like that. >> So I think what a lot of 208 00:10:15,782 --> 00:10:18,218 people would be rightfully wondering is, is this going 209 00:10:18,285 --> 00:10:21,088 to happen? Is this something that is likely to 210 00:10:21,154 --> 00:10:23,624 happen in Wisconsin specifically? 211 00:10:23,690 --> 00:10:26,059 >> The first thing I always look at when these kind of 212 00:10:26,126 --> 00:10:28,262 things come out of Trump White House specifically is 213 00:10:28,328 --> 00:10:30,998 what is the reaction for politicians in Wisconsin? 214 00:10:31,064 --> 00:10:33,467 We saw universally all the Democrats, including 215 00:10:33,534 --> 00:10:36,470 Governor Evers, use a profanity online to 216 00:10:36,537 --> 00:10:39,106 describe his reaction to this. And we didn't see 217 00:10:39,173 --> 00:10:41,775 anything from Republicans. And if this had a prayer or 218 00:10:41,842 --> 00:10:44,878 a chance of actually being legal or valid in Wisconsin, 219 00:10:44,945 --> 00:10:47,014 there would have been some of the usual Trump 220 00:10:47,080 --> 00:10:48,916 supporting Republicans that would have come out and 221 00:10:48,982 --> 00:10:50,984 said, yes, thank you, President Trump. It's about 222 00:10:51,051 --> 00:10:53,820 time. I didn't see any of that. Maybe somewhere it 223 00:10:53,887 --> 00:10:56,190 was put out and I missed it. But the overall reaction 224 00:10:56,256 --> 00:10:58,759 was a lot of crickets from Republicans. That signals 225 00:10:58,825 --> 00:11:02,129 most election observers not legal in Wisconsin. 226 00:11:02,196 --> 00:11:05,399 Unenforceable in Wisconsin would remove the right to 227 00:11:05,465 --> 00:11:08,001 vote for absentee ballots. We have. You can register 228 00:11:08,068 --> 00:11:10,470 on day of. There's just so many things that do not 229 00:11:10,537 --> 00:11:12,673 apply to how Wisconsin elections are run, barring 230 00:11:12,739 --> 00:11:15,409 the fact that it's not even legal constitutionally 231 00:11:15,475 --> 00:11:17,244 across the rest of the country. According to every 232 00:11:17,311 --> 00:11:19,313 election expert that we ever talked to. I mean, 233 00:11:19,379 --> 00:11:22,115 Shawn, you've covered this just as long. It's not 234 00:11:22,182 --> 00:11:24,051 possible for the federal government to dictate how 235 00:11:24,117 --> 00:11:26,053 elections are run. That's done by the states. 236 00:11:26,119 --> 00:11:28,155 >> No, I mean, actually, Rich was just doing an 237 00:11:28,222 --> 00:11:30,924 interview with a legal expert and Rich, I'm 238 00:11:30,991 --> 00:11:34,294 stealing your story here. But the expert was just 239 00:11:34,361 --> 00:11:36,997 reading from their phone the section of the 240 00:11:37,064 --> 00:11:39,900 Constitution that says, basically, this is a right 241 00:11:39,967 --> 00:11:43,604 that belongs to states. Anya, there was an order 242 00:11:43,670 --> 00:11:46,306 this week, though not from the president, from the 243 00:11:46,373 --> 00:11:50,377 United States Supreme Court, that overturned a 244 00:11:50,444 --> 00:11:54,381 conversion therapy ban in Colorado. We have a 245 00:11:54,448 --> 00:11:57,818 conversion therapy ban in Wisconsin. What does that 246 00:11:57,885 --> 00:12:01,221 U.S. Supreme Court decision mean for us here? 247 00:12:01,288 --> 00:12:04,157 >> Yeah, so this is kind of there's sort of two levels 248 00:12:04,224 --> 00:12:07,594 at which this decision kind of functions in Wisconsin. 249 00:12:07,661 --> 00:12:10,163 So to go back in time a little bit last summer, 250 00:12:10,230 --> 00:12:12,666 there was this big Wisconsin state Supreme 251 00:12:12,733 --> 00:12:16,203 Court decision. That is the reason that we have this 252 00:12:16,270 --> 00:12:20,340 statewide conversion therapy ban, but it is an 253 00:12:20,407 --> 00:12:22,576 administrative rule. It's not a law. And so kind of 254 00:12:22,643 --> 00:12:25,078 putting aside the conversation around what 255 00:12:25,145 --> 00:12:27,648 that did for the balance of powers, it was this kind of 256 00:12:27,714 --> 00:12:31,718 huge decision. One of the outcomes of that was that 257 00:12:31,785 --> 00:12:34,154 agencies that want to impose rules can do so. And 258 00:12:34,221 --> 00:12:37,090 one of the ones that was imposed was around 259 00:12:37,157 --> 00:12:39,860 professional behavior for therapists and marriage 260 00:12:39,927 --> 00:12:42,930 counselors. And so according to the rules of 261 00:12:42,996 --> 00:12:45,766 their conduct, they cannot practice conversion therapy, 262 00:12:45,832 --> 00:12:47,935 which is sort of the practice of, of counseling 263 00:12:48,001 --> 00:12:50,771 people towards certain gender sexual identities. 264 00:12:50,838 --> 00:12:53,373 So that is the form that our ban takes. So that's 265 00:12:53,440 --> 00:12:56,210 different than how it looks in Colorado. All of which 266 00:12:56,276 --> 00:12:59,146 is to say that the answer of how this affects us in 267 00:12:59,213 --> 00:13:01,348 Wisconsin is it really depends on who you ask. So 268 00:13:01,415 --> 00:13:03,383 according to the governor's office and the governor 269 00:13:03,450 --> 00:13:05,519 supports this ban on conversion therapy, the ban 270 00:13:05,586 --> 00:13:09,323 here is still in place according sort of pending 271 00:13:09,389 --> 00:13:12,726 litigation was kind of the the, you know, tempering of 272 00:13:12,793 --> 00:13:16,029 that. And then I spoke to conservative kind of 273 00:13:16,096 --> 00:13:19,499 supporters of overturning bans on this, including at 274 00:13:19,566 --> 00:13:21,869 the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. And they 275 00:13:21,935 --> 00:13:25,072 said, well, as soon as the lawsuit is filed, you know, 276 00:13:25,138 --> 00:13:28,242 that will go after the Wisconsin ban. And so the 277 00:13:28,308 --> 00:13:31,945 question is, is Will going to file that lawsuit? So 278 00:13:32,012 --> 00:13:34,948 right now it seems to be on the books. And also we have 279 00:13:35,015 --> 00:13:37,918 many local versions of these laws around Wisconsin. 280 00:13:37,985 --> 00:13:41,588 But sort of how soon will this be then challenged 281 00:13:41,655 --> 00:13:43,790 here in the state? That sort of the big question. 282 00:13:43,857 --> 00:13:45,859 >> But definitely it carries more weight than 283 00:13:45,926 --> 00:13:48,595 your average executive order, I suppose, because 284 00:13:48,662 --> 00:13:50,731 they are the court of last resort. 285 00:13:50,797 --> 00:13:53,100 >> And yeah, and they said that these types of bans 286 00:13:53,166 --> 00:13:55,636 violate a counselor's free speech. That's a First 287 00:13:55,702 --> 00:13:58,539 Amendment violation. That's a very big and it was an 8 288 00:13:58,605 --> 00:14:00,407 to 1 decision, right? Even liberals on the Supreme 289 00:14:00,474 --> 00:14:02,576 Court found. >> That what's interesting 290 00:14:02,643 --> 00:14:04,678 is more likely that would be filed in federal court, 291 00:14:04,745 --> 00:14:07,247 which really would take away the venue of the 292 00:14:07,314 --> 00:14:09,082 Liberal majority in Wisconsin Supreme Court, 293 00:14:09,149 --> 00:14:11,752 even though it's a state administrative rule. This 294 00:14:11,818 --> 00:14:13,820 was a federal court decision, free speech. 295 00:14:13,887 --> 00:14:16,390 First amendment is a federal right, so they 296 00:14:16,456 --> 00:14:19,059 don't have to worry about Wisconsin's Liberals 297 00:14:19,126 --> 00:14:21,094 running the court. They can skip the venue and head 298 00:14:21,161 --> 00:14:23,063 right to Madison and federal court. 299 00:14:23,130 --> 00:14:25,566 >> Sure. So we got to talk about our court, though, 300 00:14:25,632 --> 00:14:28,702 because we have an election on Tuesday. By the time we 301 00:14:28,769 --> 00:14:31,705 do the show next week, we're going to know who the 302 00:14:31,772 --> 00:14:33,707 next justice is. There were some fundraising numbers 303 00:14:33,774 --> 00:14:38,412 out this week. Rich, as we wind up this campaign, what 304 00:14:38,478 --> 00:14:42,716 story did they tell? >> Well, they told that 305 00:14:42,783 --> 00:14:45,619 Liberal appeals court justice excuse me, Liberal 306 00:14:45,686 --> 00:14:48,822 Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor is continuing to 307 00:14:48,889 --> 00:14:51,725 really pull ahead in terms of fundraising over 308 00:14:51,792 --> 00:14:55,662 conservative appeals. Justice Judge Maria Lazar. 309 00:14:55,729 --> 00:14:58,298 So Taylor, in this last reporting period, raised 310 00:14:58,365 --> 00:15:03,003 four times as much as Lazar. She also got donations from 311 00:15:03,070 --> 00:15:07,241 around 20,000 more than 20,000 people. Lazar 312 00:15:07,307 --> 00:15:11,879 donations came from about six 700 people. So a big 313 00:15:12,579 --> 00:15:16,283 discrepancy there. Also, Taylor really outspent 314 00:15:16,350 --> 00:15:19,152 Lazar this time. So the numbers actually represent 315 00:15:19,219 --> 00:15:22,055 an improvement for Lazar compared to the last 316 00:15:22,122 --> 00:15:25,225 reporting period that ended at the end of last year, 317 00:15:25,292 --> 00:15:28,829 which was a 10 to 1 gap with Taylor in the lead, 318 00:15:28,896 --> 00:15:31,198 but still not the kind of numbers you want to have 319 00:15:31,265 --> 00:15:34,234 with a, you know, days before the election. 320 00:15:34,301 --> 00:15:36,737 >> And some money coming to the candidates from the 321 00:15:36,803 --> 00:15:39,773 political parties. Zac, you've done some reporting 322 00:15:39,840 --> 00:15:43,277 on this. One of these people is going to be a 323 00:15:43,343 --> 00:15:46,213 justice very soon, and they will have that political 324 00:15:46,280 --> 00:15:49,249 donation basically on their resume. Are they going to 325 00:15:49,316 --> 00:15:51,818 have to step down when these parties have business 326 00:15:51,885 --> 00:15:54,555 before the court? >> The short answer is no. 327 00:15:54,621 --> 00:15:57,291 And there are two different courts that have said that 328 00:15:57,357 --> 00:15:59,960 is the reason, the first of which is the Wisconsin 329 00:16:00,027 --> 00:16:02,296 Supreme Court. And when the conservatives ruled the 330 00:16:02,362 --> 00:16:05,465 court about a little more than a decade ago, they put 331 00:16:05,532 --> 00:16:07,568 in place the recusal standard that still governs 332 00:16:07,634 --> 00:16:09,703 the court. That says just because you received a 333 00:16:09,770 --> 00:16:12,639 campaign donation does not mean that you are biased in 334 00:16:12,706 --> 00:16:15,609 part for that party. Part of that reason, the 335 00:16:15,676 --> 00:16:17,811 rationale was, well, what if your opponent donates 336 00:16:17,878 --> 00:16:20,681 money to you and then tries to kick you off the case? 337 00:16:20,747 --> 00:16:23,684 Another one is the United States Supreme Court has 338 00:16:23,750 --> 00:16:26,053 similar rulings that have been applied multiple times 339 00:16:26,119 --> 00:16:28,722 that say that just because you received a campaign 340 00:16:28,789 --> 00:16:30,958 donation does not mean you have to step down. This has 341 00:16:31,024 --> 00:16:33,627 been tried repeatedly. They've Republicans have 342 00:16:33,694 --> 00:16:35,863 gone after Janet Protasiewicz multiple times, 343 00:16:35,929 --> 00:16:38,532 including on redistricting cases over and over because 344 00:16:38,599 --> 00:16:41,201 of the donations she got. And over and over, no one 345 00:16:41,268 --> 00:16:44,538 has been stepping down over this in Wisconsin. 346 00:16:44,605 --> 00:16:47,341 >> You know, I'm curious, Anya, the both parties, we 347 00:16:47,407 --> 00:16:49,810 said gave money to the candidates. Democrats gave 348 00:16:49,877 --> 00:16:53,080 more. But in the past, they've given a lot more. 349 00:16:53,146 --> 00:16:55,516 What can we read into the fact that they're deciding 350 00:16:55,582 --> 00:16:58,519 to not deem this the election of all elections 351 00:16:58,585 --> 00:17:00,988 and pouring all resources into it the way that they 352 00:17:01,054 --> 00:17:03,590 did in the Protasiewicz race or the Crawford race? 353 00:17:03,657 --> 00:17:05,826 >> Yeah. I mean, we are used to kind of hearing 354 00:17:05,893 --> 00:17:07,861 that level of language around both the Supreme 355 00:17:07,928 --> 00:17:09,763 Court elections and then also various national 356 00:17:09,830 --> 00:17:12,666 elections. most important of our lives. 357 00:17:12,733 --> 00:17:14,902 >> Exactly. But this one, November is actually 358 00:17:14,968 --> 00:17:16,937 probably the most important of our lives. And maybe the 359 00:17:17,004 --> 00:17:20,407 Democrats want to kind of keep that messaging for the 360 00:17:20,474 --> 00:17:22,376 midterms. And so kind of stepping back and maybe 361 00:17:22,442 --> 00:17:24,778 they're really confident about their contender this 362 00:17:24,845 --> 00:17:27,281 time. The stakes are not as high. Liberals will hold a 363 00:17:27,347 --> 00:17:30,083 majority no matter who wins. And so why not kind of keep 364 00:17:30,150 --> 00:17:32,186 those resources in the bank for November? 365 00:17:32,252 --> 00:17:34,354 >> Zac, you described it as kind of they're making a 366 00:17:34,421 --> 00:17:36,690 bet. Essentially. >> They're hedging their 367 00:17:36,757 --> 00:17:39,326 bet that they don't have to invest any more to secure 368 00:17:39,393 --> 00:17:41,762 this win. I think you pointed out perfectly that 369 00:17:41,828 --> 00:17:44,565 even if they lose the hedge on that bet, somehow they 370 00:17:44,631 --> 00:17:47,134 still maintain the majority. But the incentives aren't 371 00:17:47,201 --> 00:17:50,270 as high. And seeing the incumbent Republicans or 372 00:17:50,337 --> 00:17:51,905 conservatives leave this race repeatedly shows they 373 00:17:51,972 --> 00:17:53,807 don't believe the same either. 374 00:17:53,874 --> 00:17:56,276 >> Sure. Well, that's all the time we have for today. 375 00:17:56,343 --> 00:17:59,213 Thanks for joining us for this week's Inside 376 00:17:59,279 --> 00:18:01,882 Wisconsin Politics. Be sure to follow us on PBS 377 00:18:01,949 --> 00:18:05,419 Wisconsin. Org npr.org, YouTube or wherever you get 378 00:18:05,485 --> 00:18:07,154 your podcasts.