1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:16,520
A gerrymandering arms races happening around the country this year, why not in Wisconsin?

2
00:00:16,520 --> 00:00:21,100
Also how some big orders out of Washington could affect Wisconsin and a look at the closing

3
00:00:21,100 --> 00:00:23,880
days of our state Supreme Court race.

4
00:00:23,880 --> 00:00:27,560
This is Inside Wisconsin Politics.

5
00:00:27,560 --> 00:00:32,240
I'm Sean Johnson, here with my colleagues, Anya Ben-Wagtendank, Zach Schultz, and Rich

6
00:00:32,240 --> 00:00:33,560
Kramer in Eau Claire.

7
00:00:33,560 --> 00:00:34,560
Hey everyone.

8
00:00:34,560 --> 00:00:35,560
Hey.

9
00:00:35,560 --> 00:00:36,560
Hello.

10
00:00:36,560 --> 00:00:37,560
Hey.

11
00:00:37,560 --> 00:00:41,800
So Rich, there had been sort of this hope by Democrats that there was this one case in

12
00:00:41,800 --> 00:00:47,760
this courtroom in Madison that could potentially redraw the congressional lines ahead of the

13
00:00:47,760 --> 00:00:49,760
midterm elections.

14
00:00:49,760 --> 00:00:54,520
It seems like this courtroom said, no, that door is actually closed.

15
00:00:54,520 --> 00:00:57,360
What did they say this week?

16
00:00:57,360 --> 00:01:03,320
So they said that they don't really have the authority to do anything about the maps.

17
00:01:03,320 --> 00:01:10,080
The lawsuit is seeking a redraw because of some things that happened back in 2022.

18
00:01:10,080 --> 00:01:18,040
Well, the Supreme Court is the one that put those maps in effect, but the Circuit Court

19
00:01:18,040 --> 00:01:21,800
judges said that they just, they can't overrule the Supreme Court.

20
00:01:21,800 --> 00:01:29,160
So essentially, they dismissed the case and it seems all but likely that the current

21
00:01:29,160 --> 00:01:35,600
districts which are held by six Republicans and two Democrats will remain the same for

22
00:01:35,600 --> 00:01:37,280
the November election.

23
00:01:37,280 --> 00:01:41,520
And just kind of zooming out as to why this feels like it matters more at this moment

24
00:01:41,520 --> 00:01:42,520
in time.

25
00:01:42,520 --> 00:01:48,600
You have this redistricting battle going across the country where Republican states have redrawn

26
00:01:48,600 --> 00:01:51,760
their congressional maps to add more Republican seats.

27
00:01:51,760 --> 00:01:55,480
Democratic states have responded in kind.

28
00:01:55,480 --> 00:02:00,680
Where does this leave Wisconsin Big Pictures Act when it comes to what everything looks

29
00:02:00,680 --> 00:02:02,280
like here as part of that battle?

30
00:02:02,280 --> 00:02:07,160
Well, we're still going to be operating under the same congressional lines that were actually

31
00:02:07,160 --> 00:02:12,440
Tony Evers' version of the maps, if you recall, under the old least changed model at the Supreme

32
00:02:12,440 --> 00:02:17,760
Court at that time run by conservatives dictated this was Tony Evers' version of the old Republican

33
00:02:17,800 --> 00:02:19,560
maps, slightly adjusting them.

34
00:02:19,560 --> 00:02:23,360
The most competitive district remains the third, which is Western Wisconsin, La Crosse,

35
00:02:23,360 --> 00:02:26,160
and going up through Rich's area.

36
00:02:26,160 --> 00:02:28,760
And that race has been close for a few cycles.

37
00:02:28,760 --> 00:02:30,560
It will remain close this fall.

38
00:02:30,560 --> 00:02:34,520
Democrats across the country look at it as a possible pickup, but the rest of the districts

39
00:02:34,520 --> 00:02:39,400
barring a huge wave look like they're going to stay the way they've been.

40
00:02:39,400 --> 00:02:43,200
There were Democrats who were thinking Wisconsin could get in this redistricting game.

41
00:02:43,200 --> 00:02:47,720
Most of the states doing that around the country are doing that with one party rule, where

42
00:02:47,720 --> 00:02:52,120
the Democrats or Republicans control the entire state, so they can do this mid decade

43
00:02:52,120 --> 00:02:53,920
even though they're not supposed to be.

44
00:02:53,920 --> 00:02:55,320
Wisconsin obviously doesn't have that.

45
00:02:55,320 --> 00:02:57,280
It would have had to go through the Supreme Court.

46
00:02:57,280 --> 00:03:01,760
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has consistently said, we do not want to touch these congressional

47
00:03:01,760 --> 00:03:02,760
lines.

48
00:03:02,760 --> 00:03:07,520
They have been given options multiple times and they've said no through original action.

49
00:03:07,520 --> 00:03:10,280
So that's why in this case, there were two different plaintiffs that said, how about

50
00:03:10,280 --> 00:03:14,160
we go through the local courts first and see if it can work the way up to the Supreme

51
00:03:14,200 --> 00:03:15,280
Court.

52
00:03:15,280 --> 00:03:18,800
Under a law passed by Scott Walker and the Republicans, that meant these challenges

53
00:03:18,800 --> 00:03:22,840
had to go to this panel of three judges and there were two panels created by the Supreme

54
00:03:22,840 --> 00:03:23,920
Court.

55
00:03:23,920 --> 00:03:27,840
One of them has said, well, we'll have a trial in April of 27.

56
00:03:27,840 --> 00:03:31,080
So a year away, obviously nowhere near in time for 26.

57
00:03:31,080 --> 00:03:33,280
The other one was the one that dismissed the case this week.

58
00:03:33,280 --> 00:03:38,320
The other panel that still has a case out there has not ruled on their motion to dismiss.

59
00:03:38,320 --> 00:03:41,840
It's possible that could get thrown under the very same grounds and it looks like at

60
00:03:41,880 --> 00:03:46,040
this time the flaw is in the law that was passed that was supposed to hear this because

61
00:03:46,040 --> 00:03:50,480
it requires the Supreme Court to set up these judges to do something and the judges say

62
00:03:50,480 --> 00:03:55,040
it's not clear what we have the authority to do in this case, which is why they dismissed

63
00:03:55,040 --> 00:03:56,040
it.

64
00:03:56,040 --> 00:03:59,640
Yet another time where these, this challenge will not get to the Supreme Court under this

65
00:03:59,640 --> 00:04:00,640
venue.

66
00:04:00,640 --> 00:04:05,400
To the dismay of many Democrats who said, hey, we have a four, three majority on the liberals

67
00:04:05,400 --> 00:04:07,320
do on the state Supreme Court.

68
00:04:07,320 --> 00:04:08,320
Let's try there.

69
00:04:08,320 --> 00:04:12,640
Let the legislature this time because it's not going to go anywhere there or will it

70
00:04:12,640 --> 00:04:16,680
on you because, you know, some people may have heard about this push by Governor Tony Evers

71
00:04:16,680 --> 00:04:20,480
to ban partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin.

72
00:04:20,480 --> 00:04:25,320
He's going to call a special session for that later this month.

73
00:04:25,320 --> 00:04:27,200
Just a thought exercise here.

74
00:04:27,200 --> 00:04:28,200
Could it work?

75
00:04:28,200 --> 00:04:30,120
Could that change the lines?

76
00:04:30,120 --> 00:04:35,920
I mean, if history is any guide, Evers special sessions don't often go anywhere, right Republicans

77
00:04:35,920 --> 00:04:39,840
who control the legislature, they have to show up, but they gavel in and gavel out

78
00:04:39,840 --> 00:04:41,600
very often on his agenda.

79
00:04:41,600 --> 00:04:47,400
But there was actually maybe some signs that there could be something to this.

80
00:04:47,400 --> 00:04:51,360
So initially, first of all, Republicans did not sort of dismiss it out of hand, which

81
00:04:51,360 --> 00:04:52,600
was notable.

82
00:04:52,600 --> 00:04:56,320
Robin Boss said that he would be willing to negotiate on this.

83
00:04:56,320 --> 00:04:58,120
Last I asked him about it a couple weeks ago.

84
00:04:58,120 --> 00:04:59,960
He said, like, it hasn't come up yet.

85
00:04:59,960 --> 00:05:02,400
So it's possible that a deal kind of won't be brokered.

86
00:05:02,480 --> 00:05:07,640
When I've spoken to experts about it, what they say is that because of the redrawn state

87
00:05:07,640 --> 00:05:14,520
maps of two years ago, kind of GOP guarantee hold of the legislature is no longer so guaranteed.

88
00:05:14,520 --> 00:05:19,960
And so both parties would need to kind of map out the 2026 elections, the 2028 elections,

89
00:05:19,960 --> 00:05:23,000
the 2030 elections going back and forth.

90
00:05:23,000 --> 00:05:26,880
And so because of that, it's not clear that gerrymandering in Wisconsin is beneficial

91
00:05:26,880 --> 00:05:32,440
to either party in a way that in California or Florida, it is guaranteed sort of beneficial

92
00:05:32,440 --> 00:05:37,640
to one party or another because we have divided government and these super, super close elections

93
00:05:37,640 --> 00:05:41,600
because we are so purple, gerrymandering is not necessarily beneficial to either side.

94
00:05:41,600 --> 00:05:46,320
So maybe getting rid of it altogether is actually the politically better choice.

95
00:05:46,320 --> 00:05:51,080
But as a constitutional amendment in the year 2026, not going to happen because it just

96
00:05:51,080 --> 00:05:52,080
it takes too long.

97
00:05:52,080 --> 00:05:53,080
Well, certainly, right.

98
00:05:53,080 --> 00:05:55,440
So it won't affect the midterms in any kind of way.

99
00:05:55,440 --> 00:05:59,280
But if there were any kind of like negotiation there and constitutional amendments take a

100
00:05:59,280 --> 00:06:02,920
little bit longer, and Republicans have said they don't agree with sort of the language

101
00:06:02,920 --> 00:06:06,200
that Evers has put forward, that it's too vague and it's too broad.

102
00:06:06,200 --> 00:06:08,800
So there's all these details that would need to get hushed out.

103
00:06:08,800 --> 00:06:12,600
But I think this kind of broader conversation, knowing that voters pretty categorically,

104
00:06:12,600 --> 00:06:15,120
regardless of party, do not like gerrymandering.

105
00:06:15,120 --> 00:06:17,800
They don't like feeling sort of subject to gerrymandering.

106
00:06:17,800 --> 00:06:21,280
It could be a really interesting issue to kind of be in the water during the selection

107
00:06:21,280 --> 00:06:22,280
year.

108
00:06:22,280 --> 00:06:25,600
So it's clear that the most important thing for viewers to know is that even if a deal

109
00:06:25,600 --> 00:06:29,720
somehow got passed, like the Hail Mary of all Hail Mary's for gerrymandering reform, it

110
00:06:29,720 --> 00:06:31,560
wouldn't affect the current maps.

111
00:06:31,560 --> 00:06:37,640
Then next time this would come up would be redistricting in 2032 after the 30 census.

112
00:06:37,640 --> 00:06:39,360
So these maps would be locked in place.

113
00:06:39,360 --> 00:06:43,000
The only way they're going to change barring the Wisconsin Supreme Court is if Democrats

114
00:06:43,000 --> 00:06:47,880
win a trifecta this fall, then they would actually have one party rule to do what we've

115
00:06:47,880 --> 00:06:49,560
seen in these other states.

116
00:06:49,560 --> 00:06:51,440
But otherwise, it's not going to happen.

117
00:06:51,440 --> 00:06:53,040
So what about that other case, though?

118
00:06:53,040 --> 00:06:54,040
You alluded to it.

119
00:06:54,040 --> 00:06:55,800
Rich, you're familiar with this case.

120
00:06:55,800 --> 00:07:02,320
It's been filed by law forward, and it just took a different approach to this redistricting

121
00:07:02,320 --> 00:07:03,320
question.

122
00:07:03,320 --> 00:07:06,600
Yeah, I'd say it's slightly different approach.

123
00:07:06,600 --> 00:07:09,320
It's kind of getting at the same thing.

124
00:07:09,320 --> 00:07:15,400
The overall complaint is that the districts are designed to favor incumbents.

125
00:07:15,400 --> 00:07:19,600
So that's slightly different than the argument that, well, Republicans drew the districts

126
00:07:19,640 --> 00:07:21,240
to favor Republicans.

127
00:07:21,240 --> 00:07:24,760
But it's in a lot of ways very similar.

128
00:07:24,760 --> 00:07:27,680
So that case is proceeding.

129
00:07:27,680 --> 00:07:33,440
The parties in the lawsuit seem to be more amicable with one another.

130
00:07:33,440 --> 00:07:37,760
They've all agreed on these court dates that will start in 2027.

131
00:07:37,760 --> 00:07:42,480
So again, that's not going to result in any changes to the congressional map in Wisconsin

132
00:07:42,480 --> 00:07:44,320
before November.

133
00:07:44,320 --> 00:07:48,760
And if it's not thrown out on the same grounds that the other case was dismissed, it'll be

134
00:07:48,760 --> 00:07:52,240
interesting to see how that plays out before the treat judge panel.

135
00:07:52,240 --> 00:07:56,400
Yeah, I would say there's a pretty good chance that we are going to, while it is not really

136
00:07:56,400 --> 00:08:02,480
a scheduled thing to do in 2027, I think we're going to be talking about this map in 2027.

137
00:08:02,480 --> 00:08:08,680
I mean, we just think about what wins elections in Wisconsin or anywhere from a party's perspective.

138
00:08:08,680 --> 00:08:09,960
Well, you've got to have good candidates.

139
00:08:09,960 --> 00:08:10,960
You still have to have that.

140
00:08:10,960 --> 00:08:14,320
You've got to have a message voters like, you've got to have money.

141
00:08:14,320 --> 00:08:19,840
But what is maybe more powerful than all of those lines and districts that favor you?

142
00:08:19,840 --> 00:08:24,640
You change the math because you can't win in a district where you have those other three

143
00:08:24,640 --> 00:08:27,440
if the voters are tilted to the other side.

144
00:08:27,440 --> 00:08:31,840
So I think in this hyper part as an era, they're definitely going to be talking about this

145
00:08:31,840 --> 00:08:38,720
in 2027, whether it is in the legislature with Democrats in power or the Supreme Court where

146
00:08:38,720 --> 00:08:42,960
a four, three majority for liberals now could potentially be five, two next year.

147
00:08:42,960 --> 00:08:45,560
We just don't know.

148
00:08:45,560 --> 00:08:49,760
So I think that's something that obviously is going to be on our radar for a while.

149
00:08:49,760 --> 00:08:53,080
Redistricting is always in play in Wisconsin and it'll never be a topic that we're not

150
00:08:53,080 --> 00:08:54,080
interested in.

151
00:08:54,080 --> 00:08:55,080
It's not relevant.

152
00:08:55,080 --> 00:08:56,080
That's right.

153
00:08:56,080 --> 00:08:58,400
We don't have to wait for the next census, I'm feeling.

154
00:08:58,400 --> 00:09:04,280
So from voting maps to voting, Rich, there was also this big executive order from President

155
00:09:04,280 --> 00:09:08,080
Trump this week dealing with mail-in voting.

156
00:09:08,080 --> 00:09:11,200
What did the president call for there?

157
00:09:11,200 --> 00:09:19,920
He called for some very sweeping changes, essentially a federal overhaul and a lot more

158
00:09:19,920 --> 00:09:26,280
participation from the federal government with regard to voting lists and absentee voting.

159
00:09:26,280 --> 00:09:33,960
So the executive order directs federal agencies to create lists of U.S. citizens who are eligible

160
00:09:33,960 --> 00:09:37,480
to vote in every state, including Wisconsin.

161
00:09:37,480 --> 00:09:43,880
And then it also directs the U.S. Postal Service to not send any mail-in ballots to

162
00:09:43,880 --> 00:09:46,320
people who aren't on those lists.

163
00:09:46,320 --> 00:09:52,000
And it would just give the president Donald Trump's administration a lot of power over

164
00:09:52,000 --> 00:09:54,520
who gets to vote and who doesn't.

165
00:09:54,520 --> 00:10:01,480
So it's likely to wind up, in court, in fact, a lawsuit has already been filed.

166
00:10:01,480 --> 00:10:06,440
There's a lot of questions about whether the president can do this and that's what we're

167
00:10:06,440 --> 00:10:08,680
going to see.

168
00:10:08,680 --> 00:10:11,080
The different parties in the lawsuit argue.

169
00:10:11,080 --> 00:10:15,600
So it's a big change that's been proposed, but it's just an executive order.

170
00:10:15,600 --> 00:10:20,680
So it doesn't carry the same kind of weight as a congressional act or something like that.

171
00:10:20,680 --> 00:10:25,120
So I think what a lot of people would be rightfully wondering is, is this going to happen?

172
00:10:25,120 --> 00:10:29,960
Is this something that is likely to happen in Wisconsin specifically?

173
00:10:29,960 --> 00:10:33,560
The first thing I always look at when these kind of things come out of Trump White House

174
00:10:33,720 --> 00:10:37,640
specifically is what is the reaction for politicians in Wisconsin?

175
00:10:37,640 --> 00:10:42,400
We saw universally all the Democrats, including Governor Evers, use a profanity online to

176
00:10:42,400 --> 00:10:44,880
describe his reaction to this.

177
00:10:44,880 --> 00:10:46,920
And we didn't see anything for Republicans.

178
00:10:46,920 --> 00:10:51,560
And if this had a prayer or a chance of actually being legal or valid in Wisconsin, there would

179
00:10:51,560 --> 00:10:54,720
have been some of the usual Trump-supporting Republicans that would have come out and said,

180
00:10:54,720 --> 00:10:57,200
yes, thank you, President Trump, it's about time.

181
00:10:57,200 --> 00:10:58,520
I didn't see any of that.

182
00:10:58,520 --> 00:11:02,200
Maybe somewhere it was put out and I missed it, but the overall reaction was a lot of

183
00:11:02,280 --> 00:11:03,560
crickets from Republicans.

184
00:11:03,560 --> 00:11:08,360
That signals most election observers saying this is completely not legal in Wisconsin.

185
00:11:08,360 --> 00:11:13,080
Unenforceable Wisconsin would remove the right to vote for absentee ballots.

186
00:11:13,080 --> 00:11:17,760
We can register on day of, there's just so many things that do not apply to how Wisconsin

187
00:11:17,760 --> 00:11:21,840
elections are run, barring the fact that it's not even legal constitutionally across the

188
00:11:21,840 --> 00:11:25,240
rest of the country, according to every election expert that we ever talked to.

189
00:11:25,240 --> 00:11:27,120
I mean, Sean, you've covered this just as long.

190
00:11:27,120 --> 00:11:30,680
It's not possible for the federal government to dictate how elections are run.

191
00:11:30,680 --> 00:11:32,040
That's done by the states.

192
00:11:32,040 --> 00:11:33,040
No.

193
00:11:33,040 --> 00:11:37,600
I mean, actually Rich was just doing an interview with a legal expert and Rich, I'm stealing

194
00:11:37,600 --> 00:11:43,680
your story here, but the expert was just reading from their phone the second of the Constitution

195
00:11:43,680 --> 00:11:48,400
that says, basically, this is a right that belongs to states.

196
00:11:48,400 --> 00:11:53,520
Anya, there was an order this week, though, not from the president, from the United States

197
00:11:53,520 --> 00:12:00,280
Supreme Court that overturned a conversion therapy ban in Colorado.

198
00:12:00,280 --> 00:12:03,840
We have a conversion therapy ban in Wisconsin.

199
00:12:03,840 --> 00:12:07,160
What does that U.S. Supreme Court decision mean for us here?

200
00:12:07,160 --> 00:12:13,040
Yeah, so this is kind of, there's sort of two levels at which this decision kind of functions

201
00:12:13,040 --> 00:12:14,040
in Wisconsin.

202
00:12:14,040 --> 00:12:18,520
So, to go back in time a little bit, last summer, there was this big Wisconsin state

203
00:12:18,520 --> 00:12:23,760
Supreme Court decision that is the reason that we have this statewide conversion therapy

204
00:12:23,760 --> 00:12:27,480
ban, but it is an administrative rule.

205
00:12:27,480 --> 00:12:28,480
It's not a law.

206
00:12:28,560 --> 00:12:32,720
So, kind of putting aside the conversation around what that did for the balance of powers.

207
00:12:32,720 --> 00:12:34,640
It was this kind of huge decision.

208
00:12:34,640 --> 00:12:41,000
One of the outcomes of that was that agencies that want to impose rules can do so, and one

209
00:12:41,000 --> 00:12:47,200
of the ones that was imposed was around professional behavior for therapists and marriage counselors.

210
00:12:47,200 --> 00:12:51,880
And so, according to sort of the rules of their conduct, they cannot practice conversion

211
00:12:51,880 --> 00:12:57,360
therapy, which is sort of the practice of counseling people towards certain gender sexual identities.

212
00:12:57,400 --> 00:12:59,160
So, that is the form that our ban takes.

213
00:12:59,160 --> 00:13:03,640
So, that's different than how it looks in Colorado, all of which is to say that the answer

214
00:13:03,640 --> 00:13:07,400
of how this affects us in Wisconsin is it really depends on who you ask.

215
00:13:07,400 --> 00:13:10,720
So, according to the governor's office and the governor supports this ban on conversion

216
00:13:10,720 --> 00:13:14,080
therapy, the ban here is still in place.

217
00:13:14,080 --> 00:13:19,480
According, sort of pending litigation was kind of the, you know, tempering up that.

218
00:13:19,480 --> 00:13:25,840
And then I spoke to conservative kind of supporters of overturning bans on this, including at

219
00:13:25,840 --> 00:13:27,920
the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty.

220
00:13:27,920 --> 00:13:32,920
And they said, well, as soon as the lawsuit is filed, you know, that will go after the

221
00:13:32,920 --> 00:13:33,920
Wisconsin ban.

222
00:13:33,920 --> 00:13:37,600
And so, the question is will going to file that lawsuit.

223
00:13:37,600 --> 00:13:40,720
So, right now it seems to be on the books.

224
00:13:40,720 --> 00:13:45,320
And also, we have many local versions of these laws around Wisconsin, but sort of how soon

225
00:13:45,320 --> 00:13:49,120
will this be then challenged here in the state?

226
00:13:49,120 --> 00:13:50,400
That's sort of the big question.

227
00:13:50,400 --> 00:13:55,440
But definitely, it carries more weight than your average executive order, I suppose, because

228
00:13:55,440 --> 00:13:57,120
they are the court of last resort.

229
00:13:57,120 --> 00:14:01,480
And yeah, and they said that these types of bans violate a counselor's free speech.

230
00:14:01,480 --> 00:14:03,080
That's a First Amendment violation.

231
00:14:03,080 --> 00:14:05,720
That's a very big, and it was an A-1 decision, right?

232
00:14:05,720 --> 00:14:07,880
Even liberals on the Supreme Court found that.

233
00:14:07,880 --> 00:14:11,720
What's interesting is more likely that would be filed in federal court, which really would

234
00:14:11,720 --> 00:14:15,960
take away the value of the liberal majority in Wisconsin Supreme Court, even though it's

235
00:14:15,960 --> 00:14:18,320
a state administrative rule.

236
00:14:18,320 --> 00:14:22,520
This was a federal court decision, free speech, First Amendment is a federal right.

237
00:14:22,520 --> 00:14:25,880
So, they don't have to worry about Wisconsin's liberals running the court.

238
00:14:25,880 --> 00:14:29,240
They can skip the venue and head right to Madison in federal court.

239
00:14:29,240 --> 00:14:30,240
Sure.

240
00:14:30,240 --> 00:14:33,800
So, we had to talk about our court, though, because we have an election on Tuesday.

241
00:14:33,800 --> 00:14:37,920
By the time we do this show next week, we're going to know who the next justice is.

242
00:14:37,920 --> 00:14:44,640
There were some fundraising numbers out this week, Rich, as we lined up this campaign.

243
00:14:44,640 --> 00:14:47,160
What story did they tell?

244
00:14:47,160 --> 00:14:55,760
Well, they told that liberal appeals court judge, Chris Taylor, is continuing to really

245
00:14:55,760 --> 00:15:01,840
pull ahead in terms of fundraising over conservative appeals judge, Maria Lazar.

246
00:15:01,840 --> 00:15:06,920
So, Taylor, in this last reporting period, raised four times as much as Lazar.

247
00:15:06,920 --> 00:15:12,360
She also got donations from around 20,000, more than 20,000 people.

248
00:15:12,440 --> 00:15:17,640
Lazar's donations came from about 1,700 people.

249
00:15:17,640 --> 00:15:19,720
So, a big discrepancy there.

250
00:15:19,720 --> 00:15:23,920
Also, Taylor really outspent Lazar this time.

251
00:15:23,920 --> 00:15:28,920
So, the numbers actually represent an improvement for Lazar compared to the last reporting period

252
00:15:28,920 --> 00:15:35,480
that ended at the end of last year, which was a 10 to 1 gap with Taylor and the lead,

253
00:15:35,480 --> 00:15:40,680
but still, not the kind of numbers you want to have with days before the election.

254
00:15:40,680 --> 00:15:44,320
And some money coming to the candidates from the political parties.

255
00:15:44,320 --> 00:15:47,720
Zach, you've done some reporting on this.

256
00:15:47,720 --> 00:15:52,160
One of these people is going to be a justice very soon, and they will have that political

257
00:15:52,160 --> 00:15:57,120
donation, basically, on their resume, are they going to have to step down when these

258
00:15:57,120 --> 00:15:59,640
parties have business before the court?

259
00:15:59,640 --> 00:16:01,120
The short answer is no.

260
00:16:01,120 --> 00:16:05,160
And there are two different courts that have said that is the reason, the first of which

261
00:16:05,160 --> 00:16:07,280
is the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

262
00:16:07,280 --> 00:16:11,560
And when the conservatives ruled the court, a little more than a decade ago, they put

263
00:16:11,560 --> 00:16:15,760
in place the recusal standard that still governs the court that says, just because you received

264
00:16:15,760 --> 00:16:21,080
a campaign donation does not mean that you are biased for that party.

265
00:16:21,080 --> 00:16:24,680
Part of that reason, the rationale was, well, what if your opponent donates money to you

266
00:16:24,680 --> 00:16:27,360
and then tries to kick you off the case?

267
00:16:27,360 --> 00:16:31,220
Another one is the United States Supreme Court has similar rulings that have been applied

268
00:16:31,220 --> 00:16:35,520
multiple times that say that just because you received a campaign donation does not

269
00:16:35,520 --> 00:16:37,240
mean you have to step down.

270
00:16:37,240 --> 00:16:41,840
This has been tried repeatedly, Republicans have gone after Janet Protoste with multiple

271
00:16:41,840 --> 00:16:46,600
times, including on redistricting cases over and over because of the donations she got.

272
00:16:46,600 --> 00:16:50,120
And over and over, no one has been stepping down over this in Wisconsin.

273
00:16:50,120 --> 00:16:55,600
You know, I'm curious, Anya, both parties, we said, gave money to the candidates.

274
00:16:55,600 --> 00:16:59,840
Democrats gave more, but in the past, they've given a lot more.

275
00:16:59,840 --> 00:17:04,200
What can we read into the fact that they're deciding to not deem this the election of

276
00:17:04,200 --> 00:17:08,240
all elections and pouring all resources into it the way that they did in the Protoste

277
00:17:08,240 --> 00:17:09,720
with race or the Crawford race?

278
00:17:09,720 --> 00:17:10,720
Yeah.

279
00:17:10,720 --> 00:17:13,760
I mean, we are used to kind of hearing that level of language around both the Supreme

280
00:17:13,760 --> 00:17:16,720
Court elections and then also various national elections.

281
00:17:16,720 --> 00:17:18,560
Every election is the most important of our lives.

282
00:17:18,560 --> 00:17:19,560
Exactly.

283
00:17:19,560 --> 00:17:22,720
But this one November is actually probably the most important of our lives.

284
00:17:22,720 --> 00:17:27,600
And maybe the Democrats want to kind of keep that messaging for the midterms and so kind

285
00:17:27,600 --> 00:17:28,600
of stepping back.

286
00:17:28,600 --> 00:17:31,440
And maybe they're really confident about their contender this time.

287
00:17:31,440 --> 00:17:32,440
The stakes are not as high.

288
00:17:32,440 --> 00:17:34,800
The liberals will hold a majority no matter who wins.

289
00:17:34,800 --> 00:17:38,480
And so why not kind of keep those resources in the bank for November?

290
00:17:38,480 --> 00:17:42,560
Zach, you described it as kind of they're making a bet, essentially.

291
00:17:42,560 --> 00:17:46,200
They're hedging their bet that they don't have to invest any more to secure this win.

292
00:17:46,200 --> 00:17:50,800
I think you point out perfectly that even if they lose the hedge on that bet somehow,

293
00:17:50,800 --> 00:17:54,520
they still maintain the majority that you put the incentives on as high and seeing the

294
00:17:54,520 --> 00:17:58,960
incumbent Republicans or conservatives leave this race repeatedly shows they don't believe

295
00:17:58,960 --> 00:17:59,960
the same either.

296
00:17:59,960 --> 00:18:00,960
Sure.

297
00:18:00,960 --> 00:18:03,080
That's all the time we have for today.

298
00:18:03,080 --> 00:18:06,480
Thanks for joining us for this week's Inside Wisconsin Politics.

299
00:18:06,480 --> 00:18:12,360
Be sure to follow us on pbswisconsin.org, wpr.org, YouTube, or wherever you get your

300
00:18:12,360 --> 00:18:13,160
podcasts.