WEBVTT 00:00.000 --> 00:02.000 You 00:30.000 --> 00:49.000 The US Supreme Court rules on mail-in ballots the state Supreme Court hears arguments on gerrymandering and national money is headed to the campaign for a southeast Wisconsin congressional district. This is inside Wisconsin politics. 00:50.000 --> 01:18.000 I'm Sean Johnson here with my colleagues. I'm even wagton dong. Zach Schultz and rich Kramer in Eau Claire. Hey everyone. Hello. So we have a lot to discuss today with action in multiple courts and lengthy arguments in that gerrymandering case. But Zach, we have to start out with some unusual news to put it mildly. A plane crash involving Tom Tiffany, the Republican candidate for governor or an emergency landing, I guess. 01:18.000 --> 01:36.000 He's okay. What happened? Well, he's been getting free plane rides to and from some campaign events from an in kind donor of Langley County Republican official. It was just the two of them in a plane. They had some mechanical issues and had to make an emergency water landing on Lake Wasa. 01:36.000 --> 02:05.000 And thankfully, they were okay. The plane went down. They were able to swim away, only minor injuries. But this is the kind of thing that could have fundamentally changed this campaign, not just if this had gone much more tragically. But even the fact that Tom Tiffany can immediately get back out on the campaign trail means that he's able to move forward. And it's just one of those scary things that by November probably won't matter at all, except as a story. But it really was a moment in this in this campaign where everyone said, wait. 02:06.000 --> 02:12.000 There's larger things at stake here. This could have been a very tragic story. I'm glad it did not end up being a big political story. 02:12.000 --> 02:25.000 So shifting to news that we were kind of watching here for a while now, Anya, the U.S. Supreme Court finally said something about this mail-in ballots appeal that was pending before it. 02:25.000 --> 02:29.000 We've talked about it a lot here on this show. What happened and what did the courts say? 02:30.000 --> 02:38.000 Yeah. So the major takeaway that all voters should, you know, if they hear nothing else that I say today, it's that mail-in voting has not changed. 02:38.000 --> 02:44.000 So if you like to vote absentee, if you like to stick your ballot in the mail, you can continue doing that the way you've been doing it. 02:44.000 --> 02:50.000 Although election officials do say, try to get it in on the earlier side if you're not going to deliver it on purpose in person, rather. 02:50.000 --> 02:58.000 But what the court essentially said is that it was not actionable this close to election day. So again, these are kind of changes that President Donald Trump had wanted to make two mail-in ballots. 02:58.000 --> 03:06.000 And to make two mail-in voting that would essentially have given the Postal Service kind of authority over a list of who can and can't vote by mail. 03:06.000 --> 03:21.000 And so some justices, some conservative justices did say that might be within the bounds of the law, that kind of data gathering aspect of it, but the kind of practicalities of trying to put it in place while mail-in voting is already happening just would be impossible. 03:21.000 --> 03:26.000 So again, no major changes, no changes to how absentee voting works in Wisconsin. 03:26.000 --> 03:33.000 But I think it caused a lot of confusion going into just clerks trying to get those envelopes at the door. 03:33.000 --> 03:41.000 So is that it in terms of federal involvement in Wisconsin elections, or is there other stuff happening? 03:41.000 --> 03:50.000 Yes, there's always other stuff happening with elections, especially in a swing state like Wisconsin that is so consequential to anybody who's running for state or national office. 03:50.000 --> 04:01.000 And so kind of the big things that we're looking at, as I mentioned, the Postal Service thing had to do with data gathering, and there are many other attempts by this White House to gather data about voters. 04:01.000 --> 04:10.000 It's all kind of wrapped up in this idea of non-citizen voting, which they say is a huge problem study after study shows is not a problem. 04:10.000 --> 04:15.000 And in the vanishing rare instances where it does happen, it is caught and prosecuted. 04:15.000 --> 04:23.000 But it's kind of a way of tying up President Trump's interest in election integrity and his interest in immigration enforcement. 04:23.000 --> 04:25.000 It kind of wraps both of those up. 04:25.000 --> 04:29.000 And so some of those attempts and related lawsuits are ongoing. 04:29.000 --> 04:36.000 Our elections commissioner, Megan Wolf, got a letter along with, I think, 29 or 30 other election chiefs around the country saying, 04:36.000 --> 04:41.000 keep your records related to 2024. You are under investigation. There will be litigation. 04:41.000 --> 04:46.000 So that's ongoing. DHS is reportedly investigating Wisconsin elections. 04:46.000 --> 04:53.000 So there's questions about whether there will be sort of investigative arms on the ground on election day. 04:53.000 --> 04:56.000 So potentially lots more federal involvement in our elections. 04:56.000 --> 05:01.000 Potentially lots, but I like the message you had at the beginning, though, as far as voters are concerned. 05:01.000 --> 05:08.000 You can send in your absentee ballots or drop them in person and on purpose as you normally will. 05:08.000 --> 05:11.000 Everything is the way that you knew it to be. 05:11.000 --> 05:18.000 Okay, let's turn now to these gerrymandering cases before the State Supreme Court. 05:18.000 --> 05:23.000 You know, this is something we've kind of touched on often on where there'd be an order here and there, 05:23.000 --> 05:29.000 but it felt like the State Supreme Court did not want to get involved in these two challenges. 05:29.000 --> 05:37.000 I don't know how involved there, but Rich, they held a lot of arguments in these two cases this week. 05:37.000 --> 05:43.000 What are the cases and, you know, give us a sample of, you know, essentially what's at stake? 05:43.000 --> 05:51.000 Well, what's at stake is the congressional districts that Wisconsin has. There are eight of them. 05:51.000 --> 05:56.000 And we're not talking about the 20, you know, this November's election. 05:56.000 --> 06:03.000 We're talking about 2028 at this point. One of the parties, one of the plaintiffs that brought it was hoping to get new maps 06:03.000 --> 06:08.000 before this November election, but that's not going to happen. 06:08.000 --> 06:13.000 Now there's even talk about whether or not it can happen before the 2028 presidential election. 06:13.000 --> 06:18.000 But here in a nutshell, even in a nutshell, these things are complex. 06:18.000 --> 06:25.000 Two lawsuits from liberal firms. One is national democratic firm Elias Law Group. 06:25.000 --> 06:33.000 They've brought a partisan gerrymandering claim, essentially saying that the 62 Republican majority among Wisconsin's 06:33.000 --> 06:38.000 congressional delegation was designed by Republicans in 2011. 06:38.000 --> 06:46.000 And the other suit is a little bit different. It's got a new claim that hasn't really been tried in Wisconsin. 06:46.000 --> 06:53.000 That one comes from liberal group law forward that is representing a group of businesses, business owners. 06:53.000 --> 07:00.000 And that suit claims it's an anti-competitive gerrymander that has resulted in the congressional map we have right now. 07:00.000 --> 07:09.000 Now what that means is that the map was created according to their argument strictly to keep incumbents in power. 07:09.000 --> 07:12.000 That's regardless of partisanship. 07:12.000 --> 07:22.000 So the reason it's in front of the Supreme Court is these lawsuits took a long route that has also not been tested. 07:22.000 --> 07:27.000 They used a 2011 law that was passed by Republican legislators. 07:27.000 --> 07:32.000 Basically it sets up a bit of a streamline process for trying redistricting cases. 07:32.000 --> 07:37.000 They can petition the Supreme Court to create these three judge panels. 07:37.000 --> 07:40.000 That happened this year in both of those lawsuits. 07:40.000 --> 07:46.000 And both of those panels dismissed the cases saying that they don't have the authority to overturn the maps 07:46.000 --> 07:52.000 because the maps were put in place by the Supreme Court back in 2022. 07:52.000 --> 08:00.000 And then another aspect of this that I'm sure we'll get into has to do with something called least changes essentially that 08:00.000 --> 08:15.000 the Supreme Court's former conservative majority in 2021 or 2022 required the current map be as similar as possible to the 2011 map passed by the legislature. 08:15.000 --> 08:17.000 So that's in a nutshell. 08:17.000 --> 08:22.000 The Supreme Court heard eight hours of arguments about the merits of the cases, 08:22.000 --> 08:29.000 but also really about this question of whether or not these three judge panels have the authority to act. 08:29.000 --> 08:36.000 So what the plaintiffs in the suit want is for the cases to be remanded back to the judicial panels. 08:36.000 --> 08:39.000 Republicans in the lawsuit say that can't happen. 08:39.000 --> 08:42.000 It's just not allowed under Wisconsin's Constitution. 08:43.000 --> 08:49.000 Zach, that's a lot. I feel like Rich accurately summed up the cases there between the judicial panels, 08:49.000 --> 08:56.000 least changes, partisan gerrymandering, anti-competitive gerrymandering. 08:56.000 --> 09:03.000 I can imagine somebody hearing that and thinking like, boy, what am I supposed to take away from all that? 09:03.000 --> 09:05.000 It feels like it is a lot. 09:05.000 --> 09:08.000 Why does it matter? Why is this a big deal? 09:08.000 --> 09:16.000 Well, it matters because we've had a 6-2 Republican majority baked in in terms of our maps for going on two decades. 09:16.000 --> 09:20.000 If these maps hold out through 2030, barring a wave election year, 09:20.000 --> 09:25.000 and obviously we're watching the Wisconsin's third to see if Democrats can get over the hump there, 09:25.000 --> 09:28.000 that's the closest to any swing district in Wisconsin, 09:28.000 --> 09:34.000 the rest of them are pretty solidified outside of a wave year when any incumbent anywhere can go down. 09:35.000 --> 09:39.000 I think the reason that people are paying attention to this is this is the one set of maps 09:39.000 --> 09:43.000 that has not fallen under this new liberal Supreme Court. 09:43.000 --> 09:46.000 Part of this is the history lesson of why courts matter, 09:46.000 --> 09:48.000 which is something that I like to preach quite a bit. 09:48.000 --> 09:53.000 Democrats were locked out of the legislature and legislative control since 2011 09:53.000 --> 09:56.000 when Republicans came under Scott Walker, gerrymandered the maps, 09:56.000 --> 09:59.000 and created basically a permanent Republican majority, 09:59.000 --> 10:03.000 and then turned around and said, well, if you really want to change how the maps are drawn, 10:03.000 --> 10:06.000 you should have the legislature do that, but we're not going to do that. 10:06.000 --> 10:09.000 Basically making sure that there was a route that could never be taken 10:09.000 --> 10:13.000 to actually having competitive non-jerrymandered maps in Wisconsin. 10:13.000 --> 10:17.000 The Supreme Court came in with finally got a liberal majority 10:17.000 --> 10:19.000 when Janet Protisei was one on her, 10:19.000 --> 10:22.000 these maps are rigged campaign in 2023, 10:22.000 --> 10:26.000 at that time the most expensive race in U.S. history for a Supreme Court position, 10:26.000 --> 10:29.000 and they overturned the legislative maps, 10:29.000 --> 10:32.000 but they did that under a non-contiguity, 10:32.000 --> 10:37.000 meaning the maps weren't all whole and composed because that was actually in state law. 10:37.000 --> 10:41.000 This idea of an anti-competitive gerrymander, or a partisan gerrymander, 10:41.000 --> 10:45.000 does not have a place in Wisconsin's Constitution or in state law, 10:45.000 --> 10:49.000 so they've repeatedly declined to take the congressional cases 10:49.000 --> 10:54.000 because they don't have anything in the Constitution or state law that can do that, 10:54.000 --> 10:56.000 and now with a 5-2 majority, 10:56.000 --> 10:59.000 they're finally hearing these cases with these panels, 10:59.000 --> 11:02.000 and they're having to decide, okay, 11:02.000 --> 11:06.000 what do we hang this on in terms of state law that gives us the authority 11:06.000 --> 11:10.000 or gives anyone the authority to declare that these maps are unconstitutional, 11:10.000 --> 11:13.000 and they're almost having to invent a clause that doesn't exist 11:13.000 --> 11:15.000 because the legislature hasn't created it, 11:15.000 --> 11:19.000 and there is no process for the citizens to create a constitutional amendment 11:19.000 --> 11:23.000 as there are in other states where there have been reforms for gerrymandering. 11:23.000 --> 11:27.000 It's clear listening to oral arguments that the liberals believe 11:27.000 --> 11:30.000 these are anti-competitive or partisan gerrymanders, 11:30.000 --> 11:35.000 but what they don't know is what is the process to actually legally decide that 11:35.000 --> 11:38.000 and have a court do something about it in Wisconsin, 11:38.000 --> 11:41.000 and that's the question that really remains to be seen, 11:41.000 --> 11:46.000 is whether they will find a way either under equal opportunity or the right to vote 11:46.000 --> 11:49.000 and vote dilution or things that really aren't written in there, 11:49.000 --> 11:52.000 and that is where this partisan argument comes in with Republicans saying, 11:52.000 --> 11:55.000 there is nothing there for you to hang this case on, 11:55.000 --> 11:59.000 which is why it is sat untouched for all these years. 11:59.000 --> 12:03.000 Anya, you have covered these justices before. 12:03.000 --> 12:06.000 You did not sit through all the arguments of these hearings, 12:06.000 --> 12:09.000 but you know what they have said as candidates, 12:09.000 --> 12:13.000 some of the new ones, you know, Janet Protiseiwitz, Susan Crawford, 12:13.000 --> 12:16.000 Chris Taylor, elected this year, 12:16.000 --> 12:19.000 and on the campaign trail and in their past lives as attorneys, 12:19.000 --> 12:23.000 some of them, they've kind of weighed in on this gerrymandering stuff. 12:23.000 --> 12:27.000 Where are they broadly now that they have a 5-2 majority on the court? 12:27.000 --> 12:32.000 Yeah, well, first of all, shout out to Rich, who did sit through all eight hours of those hearings. 12:32.000 --> 12:36.000 But yeah, I mean, as Zach mentioned, this is an issue that comes up sort of 12:36.000 --> 12:40.000 when they are campaigning because it is a way of kind of signaling for other things, 12:40.000 --> 12:45.000 right, when you talk about gerrymandering that has an inherently kind of partisan 12:45.000 --> 12:48.000 or political bent to it, and so obviously what they say is that 12:48.000 --> 12:51.000 you know, they don't prejudge cases in advance, 12:51.000 --> 12:55.000 but some of them have been involved, Janet Protiseiwitz, for example, 12:55.000 --> 13:00.000 talked about the maps being rigged when she ran involved in lawsuits related to 13:00.000 --> 13:02.000 these types of questions before. 13:02.000 --> 13:06.000 One of the things that I think is also important to kind of note is that 13:06.000 --> 13:10.000 regardless of those stances, previous work that they've done on the issues, 13:10.000 --> 13:16.000 the recusal rules for justices is essentially like, does a justice want to recuse or not? 13:16.000 --> 13:20.000 So even if, you know, this has been a question of what Janet Protiseiwitz, for example, 13:20.000 --> 13:22.000 the words, the maps are rigged. 13:22.000 --> 13:24.000 Did that mean she couldn't be involved in hearing that case? 13:24.000 --> 13:27.000 She determined, no, it does not mean that, and so she didn't recuse. 13:27.000 --> 13:34.000 And so these justices will continue to hear the cases around this kind of regardless 13:34.000 --> 13:36.000 of their history. 13:36.000 --> 13:41.000 Rich, Zach alluded to this a little bit in you did in your reporting, 13:41.000 --> 13:47.000 a general openness on the court during these arguments from some of these justices 13:47.000 --> 13:53.000 to potentially strike in these maps down without the details of how they do it. 13:53.000 --> 13:57.000 What kind of things were you hearing from the justices? 13:57.000 --> 14:03.000 I mean, I heard the liberal justices say outright that these maps are gerrymandered 14:03.000 --> 14:10.000 essentially, and they were really focusing on the least changes doctrine 14:10.000 --> 14:13.000 from the court's former conservative majority. 14:13.000 --> 14:18.000 That was essentially, I don't know the right term, 14:18.000 --> 14:22.000 but in the ruling on the state legislative maps from the liberal majority, 14:22.000 --> 14:26.000 they said, at least change, we're not going to follow that anymore. 14:26.000 --> 14:28.000 It doesn't make sense. 14:28.000 --> 14:34.000 It's not neutral to allow something that is a gerrymandered to stand 14:34.000 --> 14:37.000 by essentially leaving it mostly unchanged. 14:37.000 --> 14:40.000 So because the congressional map is least changed, 14:40.000 --> 14:46.000 it seems like that might be an avenue for the Supreme Court to hang the potential 14:46.000 --> 14:48.000 decision striking down the maps on. 14:48.000 --> 14:50.000 Of course, I don't know how it'll play out, 14:50.000 --> 14:54.000 but that's one thing that I'm definitely watching. 14:54.000 --> 14:58.000 The justices also said, liberal justices said, 14:58.000 --> 15:00.000 least change isn't a thing. 15:00.000 --> 15:04.000 The attorney from this group law for, or excuse me, 15:04.000 --> 15:08.000 Elias Law Group called it legal quicksand, 15:08.000 --> 15:11.000 which is just a fun phrase. 15:11.000 --> 15:16.000 So we're going to have to wait and see what the Supreme Court does in terms of 15:16.000 --> 15:17.000 remand. 15:17.000 --> 15:19.000 I mean, there's a potential that they could do more than that, 15:19.000 --> 15:23.000 but they were also talking about whether or not these cases should be 15:23.000 --> 15:25.000 consolidated or could be consolidated. 15:25.000 --> 15:27.000 They bring different cases. 15:27.000 --> 15:32.000 There was some discussion about, boy, that would cause a lot of scheduling problems, 15:32.000 --> 15:33.000 et cetera. 15:33.000 --> 15:38.000 So a lot left to come out on this. 15:38.000 --> 15:43.000 Sean, I think it's worth mentioning for people that wonder whether this will 15:43.000 --> 15:47.000 happen is there is still a good chance the Supreme Court could completely punt on 15:47.000 --> 15:48.000 this yet again. 15:48.000 --> 15:53.000 And the scenario is if the Democrats take over the legislature and elect David 15:53.000 --> 15:58.000 Crowley this fall, they will write their own congressional districts next January, 15:58.000 --> 16:03.000 100 percent guaranteed because they have the right because the legislature never 16:03.000 --> 16:05.000 passed maps for this decade. 16:05.000 --> 16:07.000 The court picked a map. 16:07.000 --> 16:10.000 If that happens, there's a chance the Supreme Court is waiting to see what 16:10.000 --> 16:11.000 happens in November. 16:11.000 --> 16:14.000 And then they can say, it's not our problem anymore. 16:14.000 --> 16:15.000 The legislature has fixed the problem. 16:15.000 --> 16:18.000 We don't have to worry about this and issue rulings. 16:18.000 --> 16:22.000 And then a new legislature will be in place that can set up all sorts of map-making 16:22.000 --> 16:23.000 processes for the future. 16:23.000 --> 16:24.000 Yeah. 16:24.000 --> 16:26.000 I mean, I think it's fair to say that this case is not on a fast track. 16:26.000 --> 16:29.000 This is not something where like other states, you've seen them racing toward 16:29.000 --> 16:30.000 doing something for 2026. 16:30.000 --> 16:32.000 Nobody's talking about that anymore. 16:32.000 --> 16:34.000 They're saying 2028. 16:34.000 --> 16:39.000 So they have plenty of off ramps if the court does not really want to get 16:39.000 --> 16:40.000 involved in this stuff. 16:40.000 --> 16:45.000 But I think it's like you said, Zach, it could depend largely on who wins next 16:45.000 --> 16:46.000 year. 16:46.000 --> 16:50.000 But the way that this process is playing out with these circuit court panels, 16:50.000 --> 16:52.000 you could imagine that taken a little while. 16:52.000 --> 16:56.000 I'll tell you one district that was redrawn a little bit in the last round of 16:56.000 --> 16:57.000 redistricting. 16:57.000 --> 17:00.000 The first congressional district, this was through that lease change process. 17:00.000 --> 17:03.000 The court said, submit us these lease change maps. 17:03.000 --> 17:07.000 Governor Tony Evers said, here's mine for the first congressional district. 17:07.000 --> 17:10.000 It makes it a little bit more competitive. 17:10.000 --> 17:15.000 And now we have rich national money flowing to that race between Mitchell 17:15.000 --> 17:19.000 Berman and Democrat and Republican Brian Style. 17:19.000 --> 17:23.000 What is this red to blue program and does it matter? 17:23.000 --> 17:27.000 I'd say it matters how much it'll matter. 17:27.000 --> 17:28.000 We're not sure yet. 17:28.000 --> 17:33.000 But the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is the House 17:33.000 --> 17:40.000 Democrats campaign wing, they added Berman to their red to blue program, 17:40.000 --> 17:44.000 which essentially means the national Democrats are going to be sending some 17:44.000 --> 17:48.000 additional support, maybe some staff additional fundraising capacity. 17:48.000 --> 17:50.000 Training, that sort of thing. 17:50.000 --> 17:55.000 So essentially, they're treating this race as a bit more of a toss-up than they were 17:55.000 --> 17:58.000 before, the national Democrats. 17:58.000 --> 18:03.000 He needs a lot of fundraising help because in terms of, I looked up the latest for 18:03.000 --> 18:09.000 the entire year, fundraising numbers, Berman had raised 700,000 or so, 18:09.000 --> 18:13.000 and Brian Style had raised almost five and a half million, something like that. 18:13.000 --> 18:15.000 He's a prolific fundraiser. 18:15.000 --> 18:19.000 So national Democrats need to do a lot to be able to keep up. 18:19.000 --> 18:23.000 So this really is one of those races it seems like where if it's a normal year, 18:23.000 --> 18:25.000 Brian Style might be okay. 18:25.000 --> 18:27.000 He has a record of doing pretty well. 18:27.000 --> 18:31.000 He had a red to blue candidate in 2024 and had no problem winning that year. 18:31.000 --> 18:35.000 But if it's a wave election, this would be the kind of district I think that we all 18:35.000 --> 18:37.000 have to watch for in November. 18:37.000 --> 18:39.000 That's all the time we have for today. 18:39.000 --> 18:41.000 This has been Inside Wisconsin Politics. 18:41.000 --> 18:47.000 Be sure to follow us on pbswisconsin.org, wpr.org, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.