Thank you.
A gerrymandering arms race is
happening around the country this
year. Why not in Wisconsin?
Also how some big orders out of
Washington could affect Wisconsin,
and a look at the closing days of
our state Supreme Court race.
This is Inside Wisconsin
Politics.
I'm Sean Johnson here with my
colleagues, Anya Ben-Wagtendonk,
Zach Schultz, and Rich Kramer in
Eau Claire. Hey everyone.
Hey. Hello. Hey.
So Rich, there had been sort of this
hope by Democrats that
there was this one case in this
courtroom in Madison that
could potentially redraw the
congressional lines ahead of the
midterm elections.
It seems like this courtroom said,
no, that door is actually
closed. What did they say this week?
So they said that
they don't really have the authority
to do anything about the maps.
The lawsuit is seeking a
redraw because
of some things that happened back in
2022.
Well, the Supreme Court
is the one that put those maps in
effect.
Circuit court judges said that they
just they can't overrule the supreme
court so essentially
they dismissed the case and
it seems all but likely that
the current districts
which are held by six republicans
and two democrats will
remain the same for the november
election and just kind of zoom
assuming out as to why this feels
like it matters more at this moment
in time, you have this redistricting
battle going across the country
where Republican states have
redrawn their congressional maps to
add more Republican seats,
Democratic states have responded in
kind.
Where does this leave
Wisconsin Big Pictures Act
when it comes to what everything
looks like here as part of that
battle?
Well, we're still going to be
operating under the same
congressional lines that were
actually Tony Evers' version
of the maps, if you recall, under
the old least changed model at
the Supreme Court at that time, run
by conservatives dictated.
This was Tony Eivers' version, of
the old Republican maps, slightly
adjusting them.
The most competitive district
remains the third, which is western
Wisconsin, La Crosse,
and going up through Rich's area.
And that race has been close for
a few cycles. It will remain close
this fall. Democrats across the
country look at it as a possible
pickup. But the rest of the
districts, barring a
huge wave, look like they're going
to stay the way they've been.
There were Democrats who were
thinking Wisconsin could get in this
redistricting game.
Most of the states doing that around
the country are doing that with one
party rule, where the Democrats or
Republicans control the entire state
so they can do this mid-decade,
even though they're not supposed to
be. Wisconsin obviously doesn't have
that. Would have had to go through
the Supreme Court.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has
consistently said, we do not
want to touch these congressional
lines. They have been given
options multiple times and they've
said no through original action.
So that's why in this case, there
were two different plaintiffs that
said, how about we go through with
the local courts first and see if it
can work the way up to the Supreme
court. Under a law passed by
Scott Walker and the Republicans,
that meant these challenges had to
got to this panel of three judges.
And there were
Well, we'll have a trial in April
of 27.
So a year away, obviously nowhere
near in time for 26.
The other one was the one that
dismissed the case this week.
The other panel that still has a
case out there has not ruled on
their motion to dismiss.
It's possible that could get thrown
under the very same grounds.
And it looks like at this time, the
flaw is in the law that was passed
that was supposed to hear this
because it requires the Supreme
Court to set up these judges to do
something. And the judges say it's
not clear what we have the authority
to do in this case.
Which is why they dismissed it.
Yet another time where this
challenge will not get to the
Supreme Court under this venue.
To the dismay of many Democrats who
said, hey, we have a four, three
majority on, liberals do,
on the state Supreme Court.
Let's try there.
Maybe not the legislature this time
because it's not gonna go anywhere
there.
Or will it, Anya?
Because some people may have heard
about this push by Governor Tony
Evers to ban partisan
gerrymandering in Wisconsin.
He's gonna call a special session
for that later this month.
Just a thought exercise here.
Could it work?
Could that change the lines?
I mean, if history is any guide,
Evers' special sessions don't often
go anywhere, right?
Republicans who control the
legislature, they have to show up,
but they gavel in and gavel out very
often on his agenda.
But there was actually maybe
some signs that there could be
something to this.
So initially, first of all,
Republicans did not sort of dismiss
it out of hand, which was notable.
Robin Boss said that he would be
willing to negotiate on this.
Last I asked him about it a couple
weeks ago, he said like it hasn't
come up yet.
So it's possible that a deal kind of
won't be brokered.
But when I've spoken to experts
about it, what they say is that
because of the redrawn state
maps of two years ago,
kind of GOP guaranteed hold of the
legislature is no longer so
guaranteed.
And so both parties would need to
kind of map out the 2026
elections, the 2028 elections, the
2030 elections going
back and forth.
And so because of that, it's not
clear that gerrymandering in
Wisconsin is beneficial to either
party in a way that in.
California or Florida, it
is guaranteed sort of beneficial to
one party or another.
Because we have divided government
and these super super close
elections because we are so purple,
gerrymandering is not necessarily
beneficial to either side, so maybe
getting rid of it altogether is
actually the politically better
choice.
But as a constitutional amendment in
the year 2026, not
gonna happen because it just, it
takes too long.
Well, certainly, right.
So it won't affect the midterms in
any kind of way.
But if there were any kind of like
negotiation there and constitutional
amendments take a little bit longer,
and Republicans have said they don't
agree with sort of the language that
Ebers has put forward, that it's too
vague and it's too broad.
So there's all these details that
would need to get hashed out.
But I think this kind of broader
conversation, knowing that voters
pretty categorically, regardless of
party, do not like gerrymandering.
They don't like feeling sort of
subject to gerrymander.
It could be a really interesting
issue to kind of be in the
section here.
But just to be clear, the most
important thing for viewers to know
is that even if a deal somehow got
passed, like the Hail Mary of all
Hail Marys for gerrymandering
reform, it wouldn't affect the
current maps.
The next time this
would come up would be redistricting
in 2032 after
the 30 census.
So these maps would be locked in
place. The only way they're going to
change, barring the Wisconsin
Supreme Court, is if Democrats win
a trifecta this fall,
then they would actually have one
party rule to do what we've seen in
these other states.
But otherwise, it's not
So what about that other case
though? You alluded to it.
Rich, you're familiar with this
case. It's been filed by
law forward and it
just took a different approach to
this redistricting question.
Yeah, I'd say it's slightly
different approach.
It's kind of getting at the same
thing.
The overall complaint is
that the districts
are designed to favor incumbents.
So that's slightly difference than
the argument that, well, Republicans
drew the districts to favor
Republicans. But it's, in a
lot of ways, very similar.
So that case is proceeding.
The parties in the lawsuit seem
to be more amicable with
one another.
They've all agreed on these court
dates that will start in
2027.
So again, that's not going to result
in any changes to the congressional
map in Wisconsin before November.
And if it's not thrown out on
the same grounds that the other case
was dismissed, it'll be interesting
to see how that plays out before
the three judge.
I would say there's a pretty good
chance that we are going to,
while it is not really a scheduled
thing to do in 2027,
I think we're going to be talking
about this map in 20 27.
I mean, we just think about what
wins elections in
Wisconsin or anywhere from a party's
perspective. Well, you got to have
good candidates. You still have to
have that. You got to have a message
voters like you got have money.
But what is maybe more powerful
than all of those?
Lines and districts that favor you.
You change the math because you
can't win in a district where you
have those other three if the
voters are tilted to the other side.
So I think in this hyper-partisan
era they're definitely going to
be talking about this in 2027
whether it is in the legislature
with Democrats in power
or the Supreme Court where
a 4-3 majority for liberals now
could potentially be 5-2 next
year. We just don't know.
So I think that's something that
obviously is gonna be on our radar
for a while.
Redistricting is always in play in
Wisconsin and it'll never be a topic
that we're not interested in.
It's not relevant.
That's right. We don't have to wait
for the next census, I'm feeling.
So from voting maps to voting,
Rich, there was also this big
executive order from President Trump
this week dealing with
mail-in voting.
What did the president call for
there?
He called for some very sweeping
changes, essentially a
federal overhaul
and a lot more
participation from the federal
government with regard to voting
lists and absentee
voting.
So the executive order
directs federal agencies to create
lists of U.S.
Citizens who are eligible
to vote in every state,
including Wisconsin.
And then it also
directs the U.S.
Postal Service.
To not send any mail-in ballots
to people who aren't on those lists.
And it would just give
the President Donald Trump's
administration a lot of power over
who gets to vote and who doesn't.
So it's likely to wind up
in court. In fact, a lawsuit has
already been filed.
There's a lot questions about
whether the President can
do this, and that's what we're
going to see.
The different parties in the lawsuit
argue.
So it's a big change that's
been proposed, but it's just an
executive order.
So it doesn't carry the same kind of
weight as a congressional act
or something like that.
So I think what a lot of people
would be rightfully wondering is,
is this going to happen?
Is this something that is likely
to happen in Wisconsin specifically?
First thing I always look at when
these kind of things come out of
Trump White House specifically is
what is the reaction for politicians
in Wisconsin.
We saw universally all the
Democrats, including Governor Evers
use a profanity online to
describe his reaction to this,
and we didn't see anything for
Republicans.
And if this had a prayer or a chance
of actually being legal or valid in
Wisconsin, there would have been
some of the usual Trump supporting
Republicans that would have come out
and said, yes, thank you, President
Trump, it's about time.
I didn't see any of that, maybe
somewhere it was put out and I
missed it, but the overall reaction
was a lot of crickets from
Republicans. That signals most
election observers saying this is
completely not legal in Wisconsin,
unenforceable in Wisconsin would
remove the right to vote for
absentee ballots.
We can register on day of,
there's just so many things that do
not apply to how Wisconsin elections
are run, barring the fact that it's
not even legal constitutionally
across the rest of the country,
according to every election expert
that we ever talk to.
I mean. Sean, you've covered this
just as long. It's not possible for
the federal government to dictate
how elections are run.
That's done by the states.
No, I mean, actually, Rich was just
doing an interview with a legal
expert and, Rich,
I'm stealing your story here,
but the expert was just reading
from their phone the section
of the Constitution that says
basically this is a right
that belongs to states.
Anya, there was an order this week,
though, not from the president, from
the United Supreme Court
that overturned a
conversion therapy ban in
Colorado.
We have a conversion therapy ban in
Wisconsin.
What does that U.S.
Supreme Court decision mean for us
here?
Yeah, so there's sort of
two levels at which this
decision kind of functions in
Wisconsin.
So to go back in time a little bit,
last summer there was this big
Wisconsin state Supreme Court
decision that is the reason that
we have this statewide conversion
therapy ban.
But it is an administrative
rule. It's not a law.
And so kind of putting aside the
conversation around what that did
for the balance of powers, it was
this kind of huge decision.
And one of the outcomes of that was
that...
Agencies that want to impose rules
can do so, and one of the ones that
was imposed was around professional
behavior for therapists and
marriage counselors.
And so according to sort of the
rules of their conduct, they
cannot practice conversion therapy,
which is sort of a practice of
counseling people towards certain
gender sexual identities.
So that is the form that our band
takes. So that's different than how
it looks in Colorado.
All of which is to say that the
answer of how this affects us in
Wisconsin is It really depends on
who you ask.
So according to the governor's
office and the governor supports
this ban on conversion therapy,
the ban here is still in place.
Sort of pending litigation was kind
of the tempering of that.
And then I spoke to conservative
supporters of
overturning bans on this,
including at the Wisconsin Institute
for Law and Liberty.
And they said, well,
as soon as a lawsuit is filed, that
will go after the Wisconsin ban.
And so the question is, is Will
going to file that lawsuit.
So right now, it seems to be
on the books.
And also, we have many local
versions of these laws around
Wisconsin.
But how soon will this be
then challenged here in the state?
That's the big question.
But definitely it carries more
weight than your average executive
order, I suppose, because they are
the court of last resort.
And yeah, and then they said that
these types of bans violate a
counselor's free speech.
That's a First Amendment violation.
That's very big.
And it was an 8 to 1 decision,
right? Even liberals on the Supreme
Court.
Well, what's interesting is more
likely that would be filed in
federal court, which really would
take away the venue of the liberal
majority and Wisconsin Supreme
Court. Even though it's a state
administrative rule, this was
a federal court decision.
Free speech First Amendment is a
federal right.
So they don't have to worry about
Wisconsin's liberals running the
court. They can skip the venue and
head right to Madison and federal
court.
So we gotta talk about our court
though, because we have an election
on Tuesday.
By the time we do this show next
week, we're gonna know who the next
justice is.
There were some fundraising numbers
out this week, Rich,
as we wind up this campaign.
What story did they tell?
Well, they told that liberal
appeals court justice,
excuse me, liberal appeals court
judge Chris Taylor is continuing to
really pull ahead in terms of
fundraising over conservative
appeals justice, Judge
Maria Lazar.
So Taylor in this last reporting
period raised four times as much
as Lazar.
She also got donations
from around 20,000, more
than 20, 000 people.
Lazar's donations came from
about 1,700
people, so a big discrepancy
there.
Also, Taylor really outspent
Lazar this time.
So the numbers actually represent an
improvement for Lazar compared
to the last reporting period that
ended at the end of last year,
which was a 10 to one
gap with Taylor in the lead.
But still, not the kind of numbers
you want to have with days
before the election.
Money coming to the candidates from
the political parties.
Zach, you've done some reporting on
this.
One of these people is going to be a
justice very soon, and they will
have that political donation
basically on their resume.
Are they going to have to step down
when these parties have business
before the court?
The short answer is no.
And there are two different courts
that have said that is the reason.
The first of which is the Wisconsin
Supreme Court.
And when the conservatives ruled the
court, but a little more than
a decade ago, they put in place the
recusal standard that still governs
the court that says just because you
received a campaign donation does
not mean that you are biased for
that party.
Part of that reason, the rationale
was, well, what if your opponent
donates money to you and then tries
to kick you off the case?
Another one is the United States
Supreme Court has similar rulings
that have been applied multiple
times that say that just because
you received a campaign donation
does not mean you have to step down.
This has been tried repeatedly.
Republicans have gone after Janet
Protostowicz multiple times,
including on redistricting cases
over and over because of the
donation she got.
And over and no one has been
stepping down over this in
Wisconsin.
You know, I'm curious Anya the
the both parties we said gave money
to the candidates Democrats gave
more but in the past They've given
a lot more What
can we read into the fact that
they're deciding to not?
Deem this the election of all
elections and pouring all resources
in into it the way that they did in
the protosewitz race or the Crawford
race
Yeah, I mean, we are used to kind of
hearing that level of language
around both these Supreme Court
elections and then also various
national elections.
Every election is the most important
of our lives.
Exactly, but this one November is
actually probably the most important
of our lives, and maybe the
Democrats want to kind of keep that
messaging for the midterms,
and so kind of stepping back and
maybe they're really confident about
their contender this time.
The stakes are not as high, liberals
will hold a majority no matter who
wins, and so why not kind of,
keep those resources in the bank for
November?
Zach, you describe it as kind of,
they're making a bet, essentially.
They're hedging their bet that they
don't have to invest anymore to
secure this win.
I think you pointed out perfectly
that even if they lose the hedge on
that bet somehow, they still
maintain the majority.
But the incentives aren't as high.
And seeing the incumbent Republicans
or conservatives leave this
race repeatedly shows they don't
believe the same either.
Well, that's all the time we have
for today.
Thanks for joining us for this
week's Inside Wisconsin Politics.
Be sure to follow us on
pbswisconsin.org, wpr.org
YouTube, or wherever you
get your podcasts.