Well, give me your perspective on the Supreme Court's ruling on the Postal Service Rules
and also the fact that when we talked to Eric Tony, he really wouldn't commit to whether
he would have...
Sorry.
I don't know.
What is wrong with this?
Sorry.
I'd switch a new battery.
Okay.
Hopefully it's fine with light.
Yeah.
It must be the light.
Should we just do it without it?
Yeah.
All right.
Let me just give you one second.
Let's adjust the light a little bit here.
There you go.
Good?
All right.
So you heard the question, but give me your reaction to all of that.
Yeah.
Well, first, it was great to see the Supreme Court's ruling.
It was clear that this would have thrown the midterm election into chaos.
And so this was a reckless effort by the Trump administration that would have undermined
our fundamental right to vote.
So this is a big win for voting rights, and I'm proud of my administration's record of
fighting for the voting rights of Wisconsinites.
I think it's totally unacceptable for somebody who wants to be the Attorney General of the
state, not to be willing to weigh in on this critical issue before Wisconsin voters.
And to me, this is just another example of Eric Tony's unwillingness to stand up to
Donald Trump.
For me, it's about putting the rights of Wisconsinites at the forefront.
And apparently for Eric Tony, he's unwilling to stand up to Donald Trump, even when voting
rights are at stake.
I think we need an attorney general who's going to fight for us.
Is that a perspective on the larger Republican Attorney General's Association or just the
Republican Party, or why would you think that he wouldn't be willing on this one to
at least make that stand?
Well, I'm not aware of any case that we have brought against the Trump administration,
where Eric Tony has been willing to say that he would have joined that case, and that
impacts significant amounts of funding for the state, it impacts important programs.
And unfortunately, what we've seen from a Republican age use around the country is an
unwillingness to stand up to Donald Trump.
And in this case, in fact, some of them supported this effort, but notably some Republican
secretaries of state made clear that this would have caused chaos.
And so unfortunately, a lot of folks in politics just have not been willing to stand
up to the president, and we can't have a yes man for Donald Trump in the AG's office.
We need somebody who's going to stand up for the rights of Wisconsinites.
We have seen since our interview with you some states start to sue the federal government
talking about whether DHS would be at polls or ICE would be at polls.
Is there a lawsuit that could be coming from either clerks in Wisconsin or the state about
those issues?
Well, we're going to remain vigilant about protecting our elections.
It's critical that every eligible Wisconsinite is able to freely and fairly cast about in
a way that's safe.
And if there is an effort to inhibit people's ability to cast about at the polls, we're
going to be prepared to fight back against that.
I am confident that we will, again, have safe and secure elections.
And one of the concerns, I think, with some of the attacks on our elections we've seen
is that people are trying to create fear and confusion.
What's important for Wisconsinites to know is to get out there and vote, and we're going
to fight to make sure that people's rights are protected.
And what other issue has popped up in just recent weeks become a big issue is block cameras.
It seems like it's only recently been that law enforcement has realized who all can access
these.
So how rapidly have things been changing in terms of what these cameras do and who all
can get access to them?
Yeah.
Well, there's clearly been a lot of public discourse on this just recently.
What I think is important is that we have public discussion about this.
I think it's important to have strong guardrails in place that ensure that people's privacy
is protected.
I don't want to live in a society where we have dragnet surveillance.
But at the same time, I want there to be appropriate law enforcement uses protected.
And so if you have a case where you've got a missing child or a senior who's missing
and a silver alert is issued or a homicide suspect who you can find out where they went
after a murder was committed, we want to make sure we're protecting those uses and making
sure that we're protecting safety while also doing it in a way that's not going to lead
to infringement on people's basic privacy expectations.
Do you think this is a legislative fix or can it be a rule or a legal arrangement with
the company itself?
What needs to happen?
I think we should have a legislative fix.
I think there should be consistent rules in Wisconsin.
So if you drive from one city to another, you don't have radically different rules in
place.
In the meantime, I think it's important for agencies to have good safeguards.
At the Department of Justice, if we access this data, first, there's a limited number
of people who can access it.
They're within a particular part of our division of criminal investigation.
It needs to be associated with a particular case.
And we have regular auditing of the process.
Those kinds of guardrails can help ensure that the system is used appropriately, and
it's not misused to infringe on people's privacy.
The fact that the opposition and the concerns over this seems to be bipartisan, maybe not
always for the same reason, but widespread.
Does that make it easier to help solve a problem that may not get mired down in the partisan
issues?
I'm hopeful we'll see the legislature take action in the next session on this issue.
There are a lot of nuances to this, and I think having a public discussion with involvement
from the public so people can weigh in and make sure their voices are heard is important
for this technology that's become widespread fairly quickly.
And so my hope is that we will see a constructive dialogue around this, and that we'll be able
to put sensible guardrails in place moving forward.