KLINGELE ...TEST...
...TEST...
..TEST...
...TEST...
..TEST...
THE DWREAD WHINED THAT IS THAT
THE AMEND WHAT THE STATUTES IN
THE INSTITUTIONS SAY AND THAT'S
CERTAINLY NOT THE WAY THAT OUR
FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS SET UP.
THOSE CHANGES HATCH THROUGH THE
CONVERSATIONS OF THE PEOPLE OF
WISCONSIN WITH THE LEGISLATURES
ON THE JOB.
OUR JOB IS REALLY VERY HUMBLE.
OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO USE THE
EXISTING LAW TO DECIDE THE CASES
THAT COME BEFORE US, AND THAT'S
IT.
PEOPLE IN WISCONSIN HAVE TOLD US
THAT THEY'RE NOT REALLY
INTERESTED IN WHAT WE THINK
ABOUT THE LAWS, WHETHER THEY'RE
GOOD OR USEFUL.
THEY
ARE WE GOING TO TRADE THAT IN
FOR SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES THAT
SHE CAN BE ABOVE THE LAW?
>> YOUR CHALLENGER CALLS YOU A
THREAT TO DEMOCRACY.
CANVASSERS POUND THE PAVEMENT,
PLANNING A WEEKEND BLITZ TO
PROMOTE THEIR CANDIDATES.
WISCONSIN'S NEXT SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE AHEAD OF TUESDAY'S
ELECTION.
IT WILL DETERMINE THE FUTURE
DIRECTION OF THE COURT IN THE
MOST EXPENSIVE JUDICIAL RACE IN
U.S. HISTORY.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG, TONIGHT
ON "HERE AND NOW", WE SPEAK WITH
BOTH CAMPAIGNS FOR THE HIGH
COURT.
PLUS A LAW PROFESSOR BRINGS
CONTEXT IS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT QUESTIONS ALSO ON THE
BALLOT.
IT'S "HERE AND NOW," FOR MARCH
31.
>> FUNDING FOR "HERE AND NOW" IS
PROVIDED BY THE FOCUS FUND FOR
JOURNALISM AND FRIENDS OF PBS
WISCONSIN.
>> THERE ARE JUST DAYS BEFORE
THE STATEWIDE SPRING ELECTION
THIS TUESDAY, APRIL 4.
AS PART OF OUR "HERE AND NOW"
2020 ELECTION COVERAGE, WE HEAR
FROM BOTH CAMPAIGNS ONE LAST
TIME, MAKING THEIR FINAL APPEALS
TO VOTERS.
UP FIRST, CANDIDATE DANIEL
KELLY, WHO PREVIOUSLY SERVED ON
THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.
KELLY WAS APPOINTED BY
REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR SCOTT WALKER
IN 2016.
HE RAN FOR RE-ELECTION IN 2020
AND LOST, BUT SAYS HE IS RUNNING
AGAIN AS A CONSTITUTIONAL
CONSERVATIVE.
DANIEL KELLY, THANK YOU FOR
BEING WIT US.
>> IT IS A PLEASURE.
THANKS SO MUCH.
>> I WANTED TO ASK YOU, FIRST,
WHAT ARE THE STAKES IN THIS
ELECTION?
>> WELL, I THINK IT'S THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RULE OF
LAW AND THE RULE OF JANET.
SHE'S MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR
THAT, IF ELECTED, SHE INTENDS TO
PLACE HERSELF ABOVE THE LAW.
SHE'S MADE IT PUBLIC THAT SHE
SUBSCRIBES TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF
LIVING CONSTITUTIONALISM.
THE IDEA BEHIND THAT IS THAT THE
COURTS HAVE THE POWER TO AMEND
WHAT THE STATUTES AND THE
CONSTITUTIONS SAY AND THAT'S
CERTAINLY NOT THE WAY THAT OUR
FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS SET UP.
THOSE CHANGES HAPPEN THROUGH THE
CONVERSATIONS OF THE PEOPLE OF
WISCONSIN, WITH THEIR
LEGISLATURES.
OUR JOB IS REALLY VERY HUMBLE.
OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS SIMPLY TO
USE THE EXISTING LAW TO DECIDE
THE CASES THAT COME BEFORE US,
AND THAT'S IT.
AND PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN HAVE
TOLD US THAT THEY'RE NOT REALLY
INTERESTED IN WHAT WE THINK
ABOUT THE LAWS, WHETHER THEY'RE
GOOD OR USEFUL.
THEY SAY RESERVE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS FOR THE
LEGISLATURE.
SO THE QUESTION IS, ARE WE GOING
TO CONTINUE WITH OUR 175-YEAR
TRADITION WITH OUR WISCONSIN
CONSTITUTION, OR ARE WE GOING TO
TRADE THAT IN FOR SOMEONE WHO
BELIEVES THAT SHE CAN BE ABOVE
THE LAW.
>> YOUR CHALLENGER CALLS YOU A
THREAT TO DEMOCRACY FOR HAVING,
QUOTE, EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE HEAD OF THE STATE
REPUBLICAN PARTY AND OTHERS
ABOUT THE FALSE ELECTOR SCHEME.
WHEN SHE SAID THAT IN THE
DEBATE, YOU CALLED HER A LIAR.
>> YES.
>> AND YET THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
ANDREW DEPOSITION QUOTES HIM AS
SEEING ABOUT YOURSELF AND
ANOTHER G.O.P. LAWYER, QUOTE, HE
AND I AND ANOTHER LAWYER,
MR. KELLY, HAD SOME PRETTY
EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS.
SO HOW IS WHAT SHE SAID A LIE?
>> BECAUSE AS YOU PROPERLY KNOW,
HE'S REFERRING TO MULTIPLE
ATTORNEYS, SO IF YOU GO ONTO THE
TRANSCRIPT, HE SAYS THAT HE HAD
ONE CONVERSATION WITH ME, SO THE
EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS WERE
OBVIOUSLY WITH THE OTHER LAWYER.
SO IF SHE HAD BEEN CAREFUL WITH
HER HOMEWORK, SHE WOULD HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO AVOID THAT.
NOW, HERE'S THE THING.
I THINK SHE KNOWS, AND I THINK
SHE JUST INTENDED TO LIE BECAUSE
SHE WANTS TO MAKE IT LOOK BAD.
SO WHAT THE CONGRESSIONAL
TESTIMONY SHOWS IS THAT I HAD
ONE CONVERSATION WITH A CLIENT
ABOUT THIS SUBJECT.
HE ASKED IF I WAS IN THE LOOP ON
THAT QUESTION.
I SAID I WASN'T BECAUSE I WASN'T
AND THAT WAS IT.
>> THAT WAS THE END OF YOUR
INVOLVEMENT?
>> THAT WAS THE END OF MY
INVOLVEMENT.
>> YOUR ATTACK ADS AGAINST YOUR
OPPONENT HAVE FOCUSED ON HER
SENTENCING DECISIONS AS A JUDGE
IN CRIMINAL CASES.
WHY, WHEN THE SUPREME COURT
DOESN'T SENTENCE DEFENDANTS, IS
THIS RELEVANT?
>> IT'S AROUND THAT HAMILTON
SAID 235 YEARS AGO WHEN HE WAS
WRITING ABOUT THE WAY OUR
CONSTITUTION WORKS, HE SAID
COURTS NEITHER HAVE THE POWER,
THE PURSE NOR THE SWORD, BUT
MERELY JUDGMENT.
AND SO WE LOOK AT JURIS
JUDGMENTS TO FIND OUT HOW THEY
ACTUALLY USE THEIR AUTHORITY.
ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE, IF
YOU'RE A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE,
ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE YOUR
JUDGMENT BECOMES MOST APPARENT
IS IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING, AND
SO WE GO THERE BECAUSE THAT'S
WHERE TRIAL JUDGES HAVE THE
GREATEST DISCRETION.
SO YOU CAN REALLY GET A GLIMPSE
INTO THEIR MIND BY LOOKING AT
THEIR JUDGMENTS AND HOW THEY
SENTENCE.
SO WE LOOK AT THAT AND WHAT WE
FIND THERE IS REALLY PRETTY
CHILLING.
>> SHE SAYS YOU'RE CHERRY
PICKING THOSE CASES.
>> THEY KEEP COMING OUT DAY
AFTER DAY AFTER DAY AND THAT
LIST IS GETTING VERY LONG.
I DON'T KNOW WHEN CHERRY PICKING
STOPS BUT A PATTERN STARTS, BUT
I THINK WE'RE BOTH INTO A
PATTERN.
>> YOU BOTH DECIDED TO FOLLOW
THE LAW.
ENDORSEMENT FROM ANTI-ABORTION
GROUPS AND FORMER LEGAL WORK FOR
THEM NOT HINDER YOUR
IMPARTIALITY AND YET JANET
PROTASIEWICZ IS MAKING HER VIEW
SUPPORTING ABORTION RIGHTS WOULD
HINDER HER ABILITY?
>> HERE'S THE DIFFERENCE.
YOU HAVE TO BE AN ATTORNEY TO BE
ON THE SUPREME COURT.
MY WORK AS AN ATTORNEY HAS
REPRESENTED PEOPLE ALL ACROSS
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM WITH ALL
KINDS OF DIFFERENT INTERESTS AND
SO WHEN I HAVE CONVERSATIONS
WITH INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
THINKING ABOUT ENDORSING ME, THE
CONVERSATIONS ARE THE SAME
REGARDLESS OF WHAT I TALK TO.
IT IS THE SAME CONVERSATION
EVERYWHERE, AND IT IS THIS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WHILE THE
COURT IS SIMPLY TO APPLY THE
EXISTING LAW WITHOUT REFERENCE
TO OTHER POLITICAL OPINIONS, OUR
POLITICAL VIEWS.
IN ORDER TO DO THAT, TO
EFFECTUATE THAT, TO LIVE IT OUT
ON THE BENCH, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A
SYSTEM FOR DOING IT.
AND SO HERE'S MY SYSTEM.
SO I START WITH THE LAW.
IN ANY CASE I ANALYZE OR ANY
OPINION THAT I WRITE, I START
WITH THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THAT
CASE, WHETHER IT'S A
CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION,
STATUTE, REGULATION, COMMON-LAW,
WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, AND I USE
RIGOROUS LOGIC TO MOVE FROM
THOSE PROPOSITIONS ALL THE WAY
DOWN TO THE CONCLUSION, AND WHEN
YOU'RE DONE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE
TO SEE AN UNBROKEN CHAIN OF
LOGIC BETWEEN THE CONCLUSION AND
THE PREMISES, AND THAT'S YOUR
GUARANTEE THE CONCLUSION IS
COMMANDED BY LAW HAS NOT BEEN
AFFECTED BY PERSONAL POLITICS.
>> SOME STATES ARE SAYING
PARENTS CAN BE INVESTIGATED FOR
CHILD ABUSE IF THEY HELP THEIR
TRANSGENDER CHILD TRANSITION.
IN THE UPPER, WOULD SUCH A
POLICY BE LEGAL PHENOMENON ACTED
IN WISCONSIN?
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
WE START WITH OHIO YOU DESCRIBED
IT.
THE POLICY.
IN THE COURT, WE DON'T DETERMINE
WHETHER POLICIES ARE GOOD OR BAD
OR WARRANTED OR NOT.
>> LEGAL?
>> WE QUESTION -- WE EXAMINE
WHETHER THEY'RE LEGAL.
NOW, WHETHER IT'S LEGAL WILL
DEPEND ENTIRELY ON THE LANGUAGE
OF THE STATUTE.
SO OUR JOB, WHEN CHALLENGES COME
TO US ON STATUTES, WE LOOK
CAREFULLY AT THE WORDS OF THE
STATUTE, WE COMPARE THAT TO THE
CONSTITUTION, AND IF IT'S
CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF THE CONSTITUTION, WE APPLY
THAT.
AND IF IT'S NOT, WE PREFER THE
CONSTITUTION OVER THE STATUTE.
SO THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION
IS, WE HAVE TO SEE THE STATUTE.
>> ONSLAUGHT OF ATTACK ADS IN
THIS RACE.
WHAT IS THE ONE THING THAT YOU
WOULD LIKE TO REFUTE?
>> ALL OF IT.
I MEAN, HONESTLY.
THIS IS JUST A PATTERN OF LYING.
MY OPPONENT IS A SERIAL LIAR.
EVERY SINGLE TIME SHE PUTS OUT
AN AD ABOUT ME, IT'S JUST A LIE.
AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IT'S NOT
TAKING OUT OF CONTEXT, IT'S NOT
SPINNING.
IT'S JUST A LIE.
SHE IS MAKING THINGS UP.
SO THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TIME IN
THE AFTERNOON TO REFUTE ALL OF
THAT.
WHAT WE CAN DO IS THIS.
ON MY CAMPAIGN WEBSITE, JUSTICE
DANIEL KELLY DOT-COM, THAT'S
JUSTICE DANIEL KELLY DOT-COM, AT
THE TOP, THERE'S A FACT CHECK
TAB AND WE'RE COMPILING ALL OF
MYMY OPPONENT'S LIES AND TELLING
THE TRUTH ABOUT EACH ONE OF
THEM.
I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT
BECAUSE, ONE, I THINK IT IS
REALLY BAD CHARACTER TO BE A
SERIAL LIAR RUNNING FOR THE
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN, BUT
I FIND THIS PERSONALLY TERRIBLY,
TERRIBLY OFFENSIVE.
MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE A THICKER
SKIN, BUT I DON'T.
THAT'S PARTLY BECAUSE OF HOW I
WAS RAISED, THAT YOU DON'T LIE.
AND ALSO BECAUSE OF THIS: WHEN I
WAS GROWING UP, OUR FAMILY
DIDN'T HAVE A LOT.
I HAD THREE BROTHERS AND THREE
SISTERS AND MY MOM AND DAD HAD
TO STRETCH EVERY DOLLAR PRETTY
FAR TO GET FROM MONTH TO MONTH.
I STILL REMEMBER WHEN I WAS A
TEENAGER, MY DAD SAID, DAN, WHEN
I'M DONE WITH THIS LIFE, I'M NOT
GOING TO HAVE A LOT TO LEAVE
YOU, BUT I'LL MAKE YOU THIS
PROMISE.
I WILL LEAVE YOU A GOOD NAME.
NOW, WHEN I GRADUATED LAW SCHOOL
A YEAR LATER, HIS COMMENTS CAME
TO PASS, AND HE DIDN'T HAVE MUCH
TO LEAVE ME.
A COUPLE OF CUFFLINKS AND A
BROKEN POCKET WATCH.
BUT HE LEFT ME A GOOD NAME, AND
I HAVE TREASURED THAT MY WHOLE
LIFE.
IT'S BEEN MY GOAL TO HAND DOWN
THAT GOOD NAME TO MY CHILDREN
AND NOW I'VE GOT A SERIAL LIAR
LIKE JANET PROTASIEWICZ OUT
THERE TRYING TO TRASH MY
FATHER'S LEGACY.
I THINK THAT IS JUST
INEXCUSABLE.
>> DANIEL KELLY, THANKS VERY
MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, EVERYONE.
APPRECIATE IT.
>> WE WERE TO TURN TO LIBERAL
CANDIDATE AND MILWAUKEE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE JANET
PROTASIEWICZ NOW.
HOWEVER, SHE ASKED JUSTICE JILL
KUROWSKI TO APPEAR IN HER PLACE
DUE TO ILLNESS.
JUSTICE KUROWSKI RAN AND WON
AFTER DEFEATING DANIEL KELLY IN
2020.
SHE JOINS US NOW.
THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.
>> I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME
PINCH-HIT THIS MORNING.
>> IT DOES SEEM IRREGULAR, BUT
WITH SITTING SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE STANDING IN FOR A
CANDIDATE, BUT HOW DOES THIS
SPEAK TO THE HIGH STAKES IN THIS
ELECTION?
>> I THINK EVERYTHING THAT
WISCONSINITES CARE ABOUT IS ON
THE LINE IN THIS ELECTION, FROM
ABORTION RIGHTS TO THE 2024
ELECTION TO DEMOCRACY ITSELF,
ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE GOING TO
BE ON THE BALLOT ON APRIL 4th
AND CERTAINLY ANYONE WHO HAS
BEEN IN WISCONSIN FOR 20 SECONDS
CAN'T ESCAPE THE FACT THAT THIS
ELECTION IS HAPPENING, THAT
WISCONSINITES AND VOTERS ARE
PAYING ATTENTION, AND THAT THE
WHOLE NATION IS WATCHING TO SEE
HOW THIS ELECTION TURNS OUT.
>> JANET PROTASIEWICZ CALLS
DANIEL KELLY A TRUE THREAT TO
DEMOCRACY, POINTING TO HIS WORK
AS AN ATTORNEY FOR THE
REPUBLICANS HATCHING THE
FRAUDULENT ELECTOR SCHEME
FOLLOWING THE 2020 ELECTION.
COULDN'T IT BE SAID THAT HE WAS
JUST DOINGS DOING HIS JOB?
>> I THINK DANIEL KELLY IS A
TRUE THREAT TO DEMOCRACY.
HE IS CORRUPT AND HE IS EXTREME
AND WE HAVE MANY, MANY EXAMPLES
OF THAT.
I STARTED TO LAY THAT CASE OUT
IN 2020 AND JANET PROTASIEWICZ
HAS CONTINUED TO MAKE THAT CASE
NOW IN 2023.
IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THE
DECISIONS THAT HE RENDERED WHEN
HE WAS ON THE SUPREME COURT, I
HAVE NEVER SEEN A JUDGE FIRST
DECIDE WHAT THE OUTCOME OF A
CASE IS GOING TO BE, THE OUTCOME
THAT HE WANTS, AND THEN WORK
BACKWARDS MORE THAN DAN KELLY.
YOU HAVE THE EXAMPLE OF THE ZIG
CASE WHERE HE RECUSED HIMSELF
AND THEN RECEIVED $20,000 IN
UNRECUSED HIMSELF.
I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW UNRECUSING
YOURSELF WAS A THING WHEN
SOMEONE FIRST ASKED ME ABOUT IT.
IT'S AN OXYMORON.
IT CAN'T BE.
THESE CAN'T STILL, THREE YEARS
LATER, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THE
CONSISTENCY OF HIS RULINGS,
WHERE HE ALWAYS RULED IN FAVOR
OF THE RIGHT WING SPECIAL
INTERESTS WHEN HE WAS ON THE
COURT.
HE'S BEEN CAMPAIGNING WITH
INSURRECTIONISTS, WITH
ANTI-SEMITES, WITH ANTI-ELECTION
DENIERS, AND JUST THIS WEEK, HE
AND HIS CRONIES PUT AN AD UP
ABOUT A CASE WHERE THEY ENDED
UP -- IT'S HARD TON EVEN FIND
THE WORDS FOR WHAT THEY DID TO
THIS POOR VICTIM.
THEY HARASSED HER, THEY
REVICTIMIZED HER, THEY MADE HER
RELIVE THIS HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE
SEXUAL ASSAULT.
SHE DIDN'T WANT ANY PART OF THIS
CAMPAIGN, AND IF THAT IS NOT
ACTING IN AN EXTREME AND CORRUPT
MANNER, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.
>> THE KELLY CAMPAIGN ATTACKS
WITH SLOGANS LIKE "NO JAIL
JANET" FOR SENTENCING DECISIONS,
WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THOSE
ATTACKS AND HER BEING CALLED A
SERIAL LIAR BY THE CONSERVATIVE
OPPONENT?
>> THOSE ARE BASELESS LIES.
THEY ARE MEANT TO DISTRACT FROM
THE FACT THAT DAN KELLY LOST IN
2020 AND HE'S VERY LIKELY TO
LOSE IN 2023.
COMPARE THEIR RECORDS.
JUDGE JANET PROTASIEWICZ WAS IN
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
IN MILWAUKEE FOR 25 YEARS.
SHE STOOD UP FOR THE PEOPLE OF
MILWAUKEE.
SHE PROTECTED THEIR RIGHTS.
SHE PROTECTED VICTIMS.
SHE HELD DEFENDANTS ACCOUNTABLE.
SHE MADE SURE THAT DEFENDANTS'
RIGHTS WERE NOT VIOLATED, AND
THEN SHE'S BEEN SERVING ON THE
CIRCUIT COURT IN MILWAUKEE
COUNTY FOR ALMOST A DECADE.
COMPARE THAT TO THE CAREER OF
DAN KELLY.
DAN KELLY HAS NEVER SENTENCED A
SINGLE PERSON.
JANET PROTASIEWICZ HAS SENTENCED
THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF
PEOPLE.
THEY CHERRY PICK A COUPLE OF
CASES, THEY DON'T FULLY DISCLOSE
WHAT THE FACTS ARE OF THOSE
CASES, AND THEN THEY THROW UP
THESE T.V. ADS WITH ALL THE
OUTSIDE MONEY THAT'S COMING FROM
THE RIGHT WING SPECIAL INTERESTS
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KEEP DAN
KELLY ON THE COURT BECAUSE THEY
KNOW DAN KELLY WILL CARRY THEIR
WATER AND HE WILL NOT SPILL A
DROP OF IT.
>> JANET PROTASIEWICZ HAS BEEN
PLAYING ON HER VIEWS SUPPORTING
ABORTION RIGHTS AND THAT
WISCONSIN'S LEGISLATIVE MAPS ARE
RIGGED.
WHY WOULD OPENLY STATED PERSONAL
VIEWS NOT HINDER IMPARTIALITY AS
A JUSTICE BUT DANIEL KELLY'S
ENDORSEMENTS BY ANTI-ABORTION
GROUPS, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD?
>> WELL, LOOK.
I THINK THERE'S -- I THINK DAN
KELLY IS TALKING OUT OF BOTH
SIDES OF HIS MOUTH.
RIGHT?
WHAT JANET PROTASIEWICZ HAS DONE
IS SHE HAS SAID, I'M GOING TO
TELL YOU WHAT MY VALUES ARE.
DAN KELLY HAS BEEN SAYING, OH,
I'M NOT GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW,
OVERTLY TELL YOU WHAT MY VALUES
ARE.
VOTERS IN WISCONSIN ARE
INTELLIGENT.
THEY ARE SOPHISTICATED AND
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE FOOLED
BY THAT AD.
JUST LOOK AT DAN KELLY'S WORDS
AND HIS ACTIONS.
WE CAN LOOK IN HIS WRITINGS TO
SEE HOW HE FEELS ABOUT ABORTION.
YOU CAN LOOK AT THE RIGHT TO
LIFE WHO HAS ENDORSED HIM AND IN
ORDER FOR HIM TO GET THAT
ENDORSEMENT, HE HAD TO PLEDGE TO
BE ANTI-ENDORSEMENT.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE MAPS, THE
MAPS ARE RIGGED.
I WROTE IN THE DESCENT THAT THE
MAPS, I DIDN'T USE THE WORD,
RIGGED, BUT IF YOU READ THE
DISSENT, YOU WILL SEE THOSE MAPS
ARE RIGGED.
YOU CAN'T BE IN THIS STATE AND
NOT REALIZE THAT.
JANET PROTASIEWICZ IS SAYING THE
QUIET PART OUT LOUD, DAN KELLY
IS TRYING TO REMAIN KELLY, BUT
LOOK AT HIS WORDS AND HIS
ACTIONS.
THERE IS NO DOUBT IN ANYBODY'S
MIND THAT IF DAN KELLY HAS THE
CHANCE TO RULE ON AN ABORTION
CASE, HOW HE WILL RULE ON THAT
CASE, AND IT'S HARD FOR ME TO
BELIEVE THAT ANY PREGNANT PERSON
IN THIS STATE WOULD WANT DAN
KELLY MAKING SUCH AN IMPORTANT
MEDICAL DECISION ON THEIR
BEHALF.
>> FOR HIS PART, KELLY STATES
THAT HE PRACTICES THE RULE OF
LAW AND HIS OPPONENT, WHAT HE
CALLS THE RULE OF JANET,
INTENDING, HE SAYS, TO PLACE
HERSELF ABOVE THE LAW.
WHAT ABOUT THAT?
>> JANET PROTASIEWICZ HAS TALKED
SEVERAL TIMES, I'VE HEARD HER
TALK ABOUT TIMES WHERE SHE HAS
FOLLOWED THE LAW AND SHE HASN'T
WANTED TO.
SHE TALKS ABOUT WHEN SHE'S HAD
TO SENTENCE PEOPLE AND WHEN
SHE'S RECEIVED SENTENCING
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE STATE
AND SHE'S RECEIVED SENTENCINGS
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE DEFENSE
AND SHE HAS TO, IN THE END, CHEW
WHAT THE RIGHT SENTENCE IS
CHOOSE WHAT THE RIGHT SENTENCE
IS.
DAN KELLY, ON THE OTHER HAND, HE
CANNOT PROVE, HE CANNOT SHOW YOU
ONE TIME WHEN HE SAT ON THE
SUPREME COURT WHEN HE DID NOT
RULE IN FAVOR OF THE RIGHT WING
SPECIAL INTERESTS.
SO I THINK WE REALLY HAVE TO
QUESTION HERE WHO IS FOLLOWING
THE RULE OF LAW.
IT'S CLEAR IT IS NOT DAN KELLY.
IT MOST DEFINITELY IS JUDGE
JANET PROTASIEWICZ.
>> AS TO RECUSAL RULES, DOES
JANET PROTASIEWICZ HOLD THE
INDIVIDUAL JUSTICES ALONE SHOULD
GET TO DECIDE WHEN TO RECUSE OR
STEP ASIDE FROM A CASE BECAUSE
OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
WITH ALL THE MONEY IN THIS RACE,
IT SEEMS THAT THERE COULD BE A
LOT OF CONFLICT.
>> SURE.
LET'S LOOK AT THE RECUSAL LAW.
THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A
HEARING ON THE RECUSAL LAW BACK
IN 2016 OR 2017 WHEN DAN KELLY
WAS ON THE COURT.
THEY WOULDN'T EVEN ALLOW A
HEARING.
DAN KELLY VOTED AGAINST THE
SUPREME COURT GETTING THE
INFORMATION IT NEEDED IN ORDER
TO CRAFT A RECUSAL RULE THAT
WOULD BE FAIR TO VOTERS, THAT
WOULD BE FAIR TO DONORS, THAT
WOULD BE FAIR TO CANDIDATES,
THAT WOULD BE FAIR TO JUSTICES.
IN THIS RACE, JANET PROTASIEWICZ
HAS SAID, I RECEIVED MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS FROM DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF
WISCONSIN, SO IF THEY ARE A
PARTY IN A LAWSUIT, I WILL
RECUSE MYSELF.
DAN KELLY HAS MADE NO SUCH
PROMISE, EVEN THOUGH HE HAS
RECEIVED, I THINK AS OF
YESTERDAY, IT WAS EITHER 5.1 OR
5.8 MILLION DOLLARS FROM
WISCONSIN MANUFACTURERS AND
COMMERCE.
>> WE HAVE JUST 15 SECONDS LEFT.
FINAL PITCH IN THIS RACE.
>> THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST
SIGNIFICANT SUPREME COURT
ELECTION IN OUR LIFETIME.
PLEASE GO AND VOTE ON APRIL
4th FOR YOUR SEAT ON THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.
THANK YOU.
>> JUSTICE JILL KUROWSKI, THANKS
VERY MUCH FOR PINCH-HITTING.
>> MY PLEASURE.
THANK YOU.
>> DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
ARE REITERATING CONCERNS THIS
WEEK ABOUT ASSISTANCE IS FOR
VOTERS WITH DISABILITIES AND
RETURNING AN ABSENTEE BALLOT.
DISABILITY RIGHTS WISCONSIN SAYS
ROUGHLY A DOZEN PEOPLE HAVE
SOUGHT THEIR HELP AFTER HAVING
DIFFICULTY WITH AN ASSISTER
RETURNING THEIR BALLOT.
ADDITIONALLY, SOME CLERKS HAVE
STATED IN POASKTS THAT THE
POLLING PLACE ON THEIR WEBSITE
OR FROM BALLOT ENCLOSURES THAT
ONLY THE VOTER CAN TURN IN AN
ABSENTEE BALLOT AND THEY DON'T
LIST EXCEPTIONS FOR VOTERS WITH
DISABILITIES.
BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE LAW
PROTECT PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
TO HAVE ACCOMMODATIONS TO VOTE
AND, LAST YEAR, A FEDERAL COURT
RULING CLARIFIED THIS INCLUDES
BALLOT RETURN ASSISTANCE.
FOR QUESTIONS, VOTERS CAN CALL
THEIR LOCAL CLERK OR THE
DISABILITY RIGHTS WISCONSIN
VOTER HOTLINE AT 1-844-347-8683.
IN ADDITION TO THE NAMES OF THE
CANDIDATES FOR STATE SUPREME
COURT, WISCONSIN VOTERS WILL SEE
SOMETHING ELSE ON THEIR BALLOT
TUESDAY.
WHO QUESTIONS ASKING VOTERS TO
AMEND THE STATE'S CONSTITUTION.
BOTH OF THESE QUESTIONS HAVE TO
DO WITH THE STATE'S CASH BAIL
SYSTEM.
QUESTION ONE READS, CONDITIONS
OF RELEASE BEFORE CONVICTION.
SHALL THE CONSTITUTION BE
AMENDED TO ALLOW A COURT TO
IMPOSE ON AN ACCUSED PERSON
BEING RELEASED BEFORE CONVICTION
CONDITIONS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO
PROTECT THE COMMUNITY FROM
SERIOUS HARM.
AND QUESTION TWO READS, CASH
BAIL BEFORE CONVICTION.
SHALL THE CONSTITUTION BE
AMENDED TO ALLOW A COURT TO
IMPOSE CASH BAIL ON A PERSON
ACCUSED OF A VIOLENT CRIME BASED
ON THE TOTALITY OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDING THE
ACCUSED PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS FOR
A VIOLENT CRIME, THE PROBABILITY
THAT THE ACCUSED WILL FAIL TO
APPEAR, THE NEED TO PROTECT THE
COMMUNITY FROM SERIOUS HARM AND
PREVENT WITNESS INTIMIDATION AND
POTENTIALLY AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES.
THAT'S A LOT OF WORDS AND
PROVING CONFUSING TO EVEN THE
HIGHEST INFORMATION VOTERS.
HERE FOR HELP YOU TO BE LAW
SCHOOL PROFESSOR CECELIA
KLINGELE.
THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.
>> MY PLEASURE.
>> IT WOULD ALLOW JUDGES TO
IMPOSE CONDITIONS OF RELEASE.
WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF THAT?
>> JUDGES ALREADY CAN IMPOSE
CONDITIONS OF RELEASE IN MOST
CASES AND THOSE CONDITIONS CAN
BE THINGS LIKE CURFEWS, THEY CAN
BE REQUIREMENTS EVEN IN SOME
CASES THAT PEOPLE SUBJECT
THEMSELVES TO ELECTRONIC
MONITORING.
IT CAN BE RESTRICTIONS ON THE
CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL.
A BROAD ARRAY OF CONDITIONS
REALLY LIMITED TO THE JUDGE'S
DISCRETION, BUT CURRENTLY THEY
HAVE TO BE CONDITIONS THAT ARE
TIED CLOSELY TO THE RISK THAT
SOMEONE WILL CAUSE SERIOUS
BODILY HARM TO SOMEONE WILL
INTIMIDATE WITNESSES OR WILL NOT
SHOW UP IN COURT.
>> AND SO, AGAIN, THIS IS
DIFFERENT HOW?
>> FROM WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
SO THE PROPOSAL WOULD BROADEN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH
JUDGES WERE ABLE TO IMPOSE
CONDITIONS OF PEOPLE.
DURING THAT TIME BETWEEN WHEN
THEY ARE CHARGED WITH A CRIME
AND WHEN THEY'RE CONVICTED OF A
CRIME.
THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE
KEEP REMEMBERING THAT DURING
THAT TIME, UNDER OUR LAW, PEOPLE
ARE PRESUMED INNOCENT.
AND SO THE LAW IS REALLY
NERVOUS, APPROPRIATELY, BUT
IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS THAT COULD
FEEL PUNITIVE ON PEOPLE WHO
HAVEN'T YET BEEN CONVICTED OF
DOING ANYTHING WRONG.
AND SO WHAT THE LAW CHANGE WOULD
DO IS ENABLE JUDGES TO IMPOSE
CONDITIONS IN A BROADER ARRAY OF
CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING NOT
JUST WHEN SOMEONE POSES A RISK
OF SERIOUS BODILY HARM, BUT OF
SERIOUS HARM WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE HAS SEPARATELY
DEFINED IN STATUTES THAT
RECENTLY PASSED AND WOULD TAKE
EFFECT FOR THIS AMENDMENT TO BE
APPROVED.
THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY COVER ANY
SITUATION WHERE ANYONE CAUSED
ANY KIND OF HARM TO PROPERTY, TO
A PERSON, OR EVEN TO THE
EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING OF ANOTHER.
>> AND THAT IS BROAD.
LET'S LOOK AT THE SECOND
QUESTION.
IT'S ABOUT SETTING CASH BAIL
BASED ON THINGS LIKE PAST
CRIMINAL HISTORY, PROTECTING THE
COMMUNITY FROM SERIOUS HARM AND
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES.
NOW, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, WHAT
IS THAT?
>> SO AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IS
A LEGAL TERM THAT WE USE TO
DESCRIBE WHEN SOMEONE ENGAGES IN
CONDUCT THAT, UNDER THE LAW,
WOULD ORDINARILY BE ILLEGAL, BUT
THE PERSON IS ABLE TO CLAIM AND
PROVE THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES
WERE SUCH THAT IT WASN'T ILLEGAL
IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE.
THE BEST EXAMPLE OF THIS IS
SELF-DEFENSE.
SO ORDINARILY YOU DON'T GET TO
HIT SOMEONE OR HURT SOMEONE, BUT
IF YOU'RE ACTING IN
SELF-DEFENSE, THEN IT'S NOT
ILLEGAL.
>> DOES THIS SEEM REASONABLE OR
UNREASONABLE TO CONSIDER THINGS
LIKE PAST CONVICTIONS?
>> WELL, I THINK WE HAVE TO SORT
OF STOP AND ASK WHAT IT IS THAT
WE'RE DOING.
SO, AGAIN, UNDER EXISTING LAW,
JUDGES ALREADY CAN IMPOSE
CONDITIONS ON PEOPLE THAT ARE
DESIGNED TO ADVANCE LEGITIMATE
CONSIDERATIONS.
THE QUESTION NOW IN QUESTION TWO
IS WHEN WE GET TO ASK PEOPLE TO
PAY MONEY TO POST CASH BOND IN
ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SECURE
RELEASE.
>> WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF
THESE IF THEY PASS FOR COURTS?
>> SO THE BIGGEST CHANGE HAS TO
DO WITH CASH BOND.
UNDER OUR CURRENT LAW, YOU ARE
ONLY ALLOWED AS A COURT TO ASK
SOMEONE TO POST MONEY TO BE
RELEASED DURING THAT PERIOD
BEFORE CONVICTION.
IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS IF THE
PERSON ISN'T GOING TO SHOW UP TO
COURT, THE IDEA IS WE'RE ASKING
YOU TO PAY MONEY AS AN INCENTIVE
BECAUSE YOU FORFEIT IT IF YOU
DON'T SHOW UP.
NOW, UNDER THE CHANGE, WE WOULD
BE ABLE TO ASK YOU TO GIVE MONEY
IN A MUCH BROADER ARRAY OF
SITUATIONS WHERE WE ACTUALLY
DON'T HAVE NECESSARILY A CONCERN
THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SHOW UP
IN COURT BUT WE'RE JUST -- WE
DON'T LIKE THE KIND OF CRIME
THAT YOU ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE
COMMITTED.
THAT'S A VERY DIFFERENT WAY TO
USE CASH THAN WE HAVE BEEN USING
IT IN THE PAST.
>> DOES IT SEEM AS THOUGH CASH
BAILS WILL GO HIGHER AND PEOPLE
WILL SIT IN JAIL LONGER?
>> THAT IS CERTAINLY A
POSSIBILITY.
EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT'S
LIKELY TO BE IMPOSED MORE
FREQUENTLY.
AND THE REASON WHY THAT MIGHT BE
A PROBLEM FOR US IS THAT UNDER
THE LAW, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO
USE CASH TO KEEP PEOPLE
DETAINED.
CASH BOND IS ALWAYS SUPPOSED TO
BE JUST A WAY OF MAKING SURE
PEOPLE ARE COMPLYING WITH THE
RULES TO DECIDE IF THEY ACTUALLY
ARE GUILTY OR NOT.
THE IDEA ISN'T IF YOU HAVE
MONEY, YOU GET TO BE OUT PENDING
RELEASE AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE
MONEY, YOU'RE STUCK, AND SO WE
SHOULD SET HIGH BONDS THAT
PEOPLE CAN'T MEET.
IN FACT, UNDER EXISTING LAW,
U.S. AND STATE LAW, YOU HAVE TO
SET REASONABLE BONDS IN AMOUNTS
THAT PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO BE
ABLE TO PAY, PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED
TO BE OUT PENDING RELEASE, AND
WE USE CONDITIONS TO KEEP
EVERYONE SAFE, NOT MONEY, WHICH
HAS DISPARATE EFFECTS ON
DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
>> WITH LESS THAN HALF A MINUTE
LEFT, WHAT IS YOUR GUIDANCE TO
VOTERS WHEN THEY LOOK AT THESE.
>> SPEND TIME THINKING ABOUT
WHAT GOOD IS BEING DONE BY
IMPOSING CASH IN MORE CASES.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER WE
ALREADY HAVE A STATUTE IN THE
STATE THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE
CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES OF
VIOLENCE TO BE ABLE TO BE
DETAINED WITHOUT RELEASE UNDER
ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN WE HAVE
SERIOUS ENOUGH SAFETY
CONVERSATIONS.
>> ALL RIGHT.
PROFESSOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE APPRECIATE IT.
>> MY PLEASURE.
THANK YOU.
>> WISCONSIN VOTERS WILL SEE ONE
MORE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT, BUT
IT WILL HAVE NO POLICY EFFECT AS
IT IS A NON-BINDING REFERENDUM.
T READS SHALL ABLE-BODIED
CHILDLESS ADULTS BE REQUIRED TO
LOOK FOR WORK IN ORDER TO
RECEIVE TAXPAYER FUNDED WELFARE
BENEFITS.
REPUBLICANS SAY THEY ADDED THIS
QUESTION TO THE BALLOT AS A WAY
OF GAGING PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT
THE ISSUE, WHILE CANDIDATES SAY
BECAUSE THERE ARE ALREADY WORK
OR TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR
BENEFITS, IT IS INTENDED TO
BOOST TURN-OUT AMONG
CONSERVATIVE VOTERS IN THE STATE
SUPREME COURT RACE.
YOU CAN LEARN MORE ABOUT THE
CANDIDATES AND ISSUES AS WELL AS
FOLLOW ELECTION NIGHT RESULTS BY
VISITING WISCONSIN VOTE DOT-ORG.
>>> FOR MORE ON THIS AND OTHER
ISSUES FACING WISCONSIN, VISIT
OUR WEBSITE AT PBS WISCONSIN
DOT-ORG AND THEN CLICK ON THE
NEWS TAB.
THAT'S OUR PROGRAM FOR TONIGHT.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
HAVE A GOOD WEEKEND.
(CLOSED CAPTIONING BY RIVERSIDE
CAPTIONING COMPANY)
FUNDING IS PROVIDED BY THE FOCUS
FUND FOR JOURNALISM AND FRIENDS
OF PBS WISCONSIN.