>> THE FOLLOWING PROGRAM IS PART
OF OUR "HERE AND NOW" 2018
WISCONSIN VOTE
>> I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
TONIGHT ON "HERE AND NOW," WHY
SOME VOTERS WERE LEFT OFF THE
ROLLS ON TUESDAY.
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE GUN LAW
DEBATE AT THE STATE CAPITOL THIS
WEEK.
AND A LOOK AT CHANGES IN THE
FOODSHARE PROGRAM.
IT'S "HERE AND NOW" FOR
FEBRUARY 23.
>> FUNDING FOR "HERE AND NOW" IS
PROVIDED, IN PART, BY FRIENDS OF
WISCONSIN PUBLIC TELEVISION.
>> STATE VOTERS IN TUESDAY'S
NARROWED THE SUPREME COURT FIELD
DOWN TO TWO.
MICHAEL SCRENOCK TALLIED 46% OF
THE VOTE, FOLLOWED BY REBECCA
DALLET, WHO GARNERED 36%.
MADISON ATTORNEY TIM BURNS WAS
ELIMINATED FROM THE RACE WITH
18%.
CANDIDATES SCRENOCK AND DALLET
HAVE COMMITTED TO A DEBATE
COSPONSORED BY WISCONSIN PUBLIC
TELEVISION AND WISCONSIN PUBLIC
RADIO.
THE SPRING TURNOUT WAS ABOVE
AVERAGE.
NEARLY 12% OF RESIDENTS PUSHED
THROUGH BAD WEATHER TO CAST
THEIR BALLOTS.
SOME VOTERS NAMES WERE
ERRONEOUSLY PURGED FROM THE
ROLLS.
RECIPIENTS WERE DEACTIVATED FROM
THE VOTING ROLLS.
TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS, WE
ARE JOINED BY WISCONSIN
ELECTIONS COMMISSION PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER REID MAGNEY.
THANKS FOR BEING HERE.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME.
>> HOW MANY VOTERS HAVE YOU
DETERMINED WERE INACCURATE
REMOVED FROM THE VOTING ROLLS?
>> AT THIS POINT WE'VE ONLY
HEARD FROM LESS THAN 20 PEOPLE.
WE'RE ASKING PEOPLE IF THIS
HAPPENED TO YOU, PLEASE CONTACT
US.
WE'VE FOUND THAT THERE WERE SOME
PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DID MOVE AND
THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD TO
REREGISTER AND THEY IGNORED THE
POSTCARD.
OR WE'VE ACTUALLY FOUND A COUPLE
OF PEOPLE WHO WERE ERRONEOUSLY
MARKED DEAD, IN A DIFFERENT SORT
OF THING, DIFFERENT ISSUE.
SO WE REALLY WANT TO HEAR FROM
PEOPLE.
WE REALLY WANT TO GET TO THE
BOTTOM OF IT.
>> AND DID IT REALLY MOSTLY HAVE
TO DO WITH PEOPLE NOT RESPONDING
TO THOSE POSTCARDS?
>> WELL, IT COULD HAVE BEEN
THAT.
IT COULD HAVE HAD TO DO WITH THE
WAY WE MATCH DATA.
SOMETIMES THE DMV HAS
INFORMATION BASED ON THEIR
ADDRESS ONE WAY AND WE MIGHT
HAVE IT IN THE VOTER RECORDS
ANOTHER WAY.
AND WE'RE -- THIS IS THE FIRST
TIME WE'VE DONE THIS KIND OF A
MATCH.
AND SO I THINK WE'RE LEARNING
FROM IT.
WE REALLY WANT TO TAKE STEPS TO
MAKE SURE THAT NOTHING LIKE THIS
HAPPENS IN APRIL OR AUGUST OR
NOVEMBER.
>> AND HOW DO YOU INTEND TO DO
THAT?
WHAT KIND OF CHANGES ARE YOU
ANTICIPATING?
>> WELL, AGAIN, WE WANT TO LEARN
FROM WHAT HAPPENED.
WE ARE LOOKING AT A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT OPTIONS.
WE'RE PLANNING TO PRESENT A PLAN
TO THE COMMISSION ON MARCH 13.
>> YOU SAID THAT IT WAS A SMALL
NUMBER THAT YOU KNOW OF RIGHT
NOW.
>> RIGHT.
>> YOUR EXPECTATION IS THAT
PERHAPS THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE
OUT THERE THAT HAD HAPPENED TO.
>> YES.
>> BUT IT WAS STATEWIDE, RIGHT?
>> YES.
THIS WAS NOT TARGETED TO ANY ONE
PARTICULAR AREA, NOT TARGETED AT
WHO PEOPLE SUPPORT.
WE'VE HEARD PEOPLE WONDERING ARE
THEY TRYING TO GET RID OF
CERTAIN TYPES OF VOTERS?
THAT'S NOT HOW THE COMMISSION
BUSINESS.
THE COMMISSION IS BIPARTISAN.
THE STAFF IS NONPARTISAN.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE
ARE REGISTERED AND ARE VOTING.
>> SO WHAT HAPPENED TO VOTERS
WHO WENT TO THE POLLS AND THEIR
NAMES WEREN'T ON THERE?
>> SO BASICALLY THEY HAD TO
REREGISTER.
SO FAR WE'RE NOT UNAWARE OF
ANYONE WHO WAS UNABLE TO
REREGISTER.
A COUPLE MAYBE HAD TO GO BACK
HOME AND GET A UTILITY BILL OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WE APOLOGIZE FOR THOSE KIND OF
PROBLEMS IF THAT HAPPENED.
BUT WE'RE NOT AWARE OF ANYONE
WHO WAS UNABLE TO VOTE.
>> WHY DID THE STATE UNDERTAKE
THIS ENDEAVOR OF CLEANING UP
THESE VOTER ROLLS?
>> SO IN 2016 WE JOINED ERIC,
THE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
INFORMATION CENTER.
IT'S A CONSORTIUM OF MORE THAN
20 STATES THAT SHARE DATA TO
WORK WITH THEM TO HELP TO MAKE
SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO AREN'T
REGISTERED GET REGISTERED AND TO
MAKE SURE THAT OUR VOTER ROLLS
ARE ACCURATE.
WE SENT OUT MORE THAN A MILLION
POSTCARDS TO PEOPLE WHO WE
THOUGHT WERE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE
BUT NOT REGISTERED.
WE REALLY WANT TO GET PEOPLE
REGISTERED.
THE SECOND PART OF THAT IS
LOOKING AT WHO'S MAYBE MOVED AND
NEEDS TO REREGISTER.
IF YOU MOVE FROM APARTMENT A TO
APARTMENT B, YOU NEED TO
REREGISTER.
AND SOME PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE
THAT.
>> YET, AGAIN, IN WISCONSIN YOU
CAN REGISTER SAME DAY AS YOU
VOTE.
>> YES.
THAT'S THE FAIL SAFE IN
WISCONSIN.
THAT'S WHY WE FELT COMFORTABLE
DOING IT.
NOW, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE
THAT NOBODY RUNS INTO THIS
PROBLEM GOING FORWARD.
>> ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE'RE
COMING INTO A GENERAL ELECTION
WHERE TURNOUT COULD BE MUCH
HIGHER.
>> RIGHT.
WE'RE LOOKING AT 50% TO 55%.
>> WE JUST WANTED TO ASK YOU THE
STATUS OF THE ELECTIONS,
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL HAAS.
>> WE'RE HAVING A SPECIAL
MEETING NEXT FRIDAY, MARCH 2, AT
WHICH THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO
ADDRESS THAT.
THERE'S NOT A LOT I CAN SAY
RIGHT NOW.
BUT STATE TUNED FOR THAT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
REID MAGNEY, THANKS VERY MUCH.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME.
>> THE SCHOOL SHOOTING IN
FLORIDA HAS SPARKED NATIONAL
OUTRAGE AND DIALOGUE, AGAIN.
THE WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE ALSO
DEBATED A AND ACTED ON GUN
VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS.
WE'LL HEAR WHAT PASSED AT THE
CAPITOL AND WHY SOME DON'T THINK
IT GOES FAR ENOUGH.
FIRST A LOOK AT A PROPOSAL TO
INTRODUCE SOMETHING CALLED A
LETHAL VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE
ORDER, TO ALLOW REMOVAL OF GUNS
FROM SOMEONE SHOWING A MENTAL
HEALTH CRISIS.
IT WOULD ALLOW THE SEIZING OF
GUNS BEFORE SOMEONE CAN COMMIT
VIOLENCE.
SUCH A BILL WAS INTRODUCED IN
WISCONSIN LAST SESSION BY
DEMOCRATS BUT IT DIED IN
COMMITTEE.
A SIMILAR BILL COULD BE
REINTRODUCED.
WE SAT DOWN WITH A PROPONENT OF
THIS KIND OF LAW.
SHEL GROSS IS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
POLICY FOR MENTAL HEALTH OF
WISCONSIN AND MEMBER OF THE
WISCONSIN COUNCIL ON MENTAL
HEALTH.
WE ASKED WHAT A LETHAL VIOLENCE
PROTECTIVE ORDER DOES.
>> IT'S A JUDICIAL PROCESS THAT
WOULD ALLOW EITHER A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR OTHER
INDIVIDUALS IN A PERSON'S LIFE
TO REQUEST A -- FIRST A
TEMPORARY AND THEN A LONGER-TERM
INJUNCTION TO REMOVE ANY
FIREARMS THEY MIGHT HAVE IN
THEIR POSSESSION.
WOULD ALSO PREVENT THEM FROM
PURCHASING ADDITIONAL FIREARMS.
AND SPECIFICALLY WE'D BE
TARGETING INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
BELIEVED TO BE IN DANGER OF
HARMING THEMSELVES OR OTHER
PEOPLE.
>> WHY IS IT CALLED FAMILIES
KNOW FIRST LEGISLATION?
>> SO THAT'S ACTUALLY A TERM
THAT WAS USED WHEN THE BILL WAS
INTRODUCED LAST SESSION.
AND IT REALLY HAS TO DO WITH THE
FACT THAT VERY OFTEN FAMILY
MEMBERS ARE SEEING SOMETHING IN
THEIR LOVED ONE THAT IS
CONCERNING.
THEY'RE HEARING THEM TALK ABOUT
KILLING THEMSELVES OR THEY'RE
HEARING THEM TALK MAYBE NOT
SPECIFIC THREATS ABOUT KILLING
OTHER PEOPLE, BUT JUST THINGS
THAT ARE CONCERNING TO THEM.
AND VERY OFTEN, THERE'S LITTLE
THEY CAN DO.
AS YOU KNOW, IN WISCONSIN WE
HAVE EMERGENCY DETENTION AND
INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT, BUT YOU
HAVE TO BE SOMEBODY IDENTIFIED
WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS.
SOMETIMES PEOPLE WHO ARE
EXPRESSING THESE THINGS HAVE NOT
BEEN SO IDENTIFIED.
IT'S A HIGHER BAR, AS IT SHOULD
BE, BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT ACTUALLY LOCKING SOMEBODY
UP IN A PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY.
SO THIS PROVIDES A WAY FOR
FAMILIES TO BEBLE TO KEEP THE
FAMILY MEMBER A LITTLE BIT SAFER
IF THERE ARE THESE WARNING
SIGNS.
>> FIVE STATES CURRENTLY HAVE
RED FLAG LAWS ON THE BOOKS.
THEM.
THIS WEEK IN THE STATE ASSEMBLY,
THE GUN DEBATE ESCALATED WITH
DEMOCRATS CALLING FOR UNIVERSAL
BACKGROUND CHECKS.
REPUBLICANS INSTEAD PASSED A
BILL THAT ALLOWS FUNDING OF
GRANTS TO SCHOOLS TO PRO
18 OTHER STATES HAVE PROPOSED AVIDE
FIREARMS TO SAFETY OFFICERS.
THE SAME BILL STRENGTHENS
RESTRICTIONS ON STRAW PURCHASES.
WE TALKED WITH BOTH SIDES OF
THIS ISSUE, STARTING WITH
REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE JOE
SANFELIPPO OF NEW BERLIN.
WE MET UP WITH HIM AND STARTED
BY ASKING WHETHER REPUBLICAN
REJECTION OF UNIVERSAL
BACKGROUND CHECKS.
>> SO I THINK THAT, I MEAN, WHAT
WE'VE SEEN IN MOST OF THESE
HORRIFIC INCIDENTS THAT HAVE
TAKEN PLACE IS THAT A BACKGROUND
CHECK DIDN'T STOP, BECAUSE THE
INDIVIDUALS HAD GONE THROUGH
BACKGROUND CHECKS AND THEY STILL
WERE ABLE TO PULL OFF THESE
CRIMES.
SO WE'RE INTERESTED IN TAKING A
LOOK AT ANYTHING THAT IS GOING
TO HELP THE SITUATION.
BUT I DON'T LIKE TO DO KNEE-JERK
REACTIONS.
MOST OF THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE
PASSED A BACKGROUND CHECK, EN
WH FREEDOM WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT, IF IT'S SECOND AMENDMENT,
IF IT'S VOTING RIGHTS OR WHAT
W HATNOT, THERE'S
RESPONSIBILITIES THAT COME ALONG
WITH EVERY RIGHT.
WE HAVE TO FIND THAT BALANCING
ACT OF WHERE EVERYBODY IS
PROTECTED.
I THINK THE NRA -- I MEAN, THERE'S
STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN OUT THERE
WHAT THE NRA SPENDS ON THEIR
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES IS MINIMAL
PERCENTAGE AND IT MIRRORS OR IT
REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY EFFECT.
BUT WE HAVE TO JUST TAKE A LOOK
AT THE POLICIES TO SEE WHY WE
ARE FINDING OURSELVES IN THESE
SITUATIONS, ARE BECOMING A
LITTLE MORE PREVALENT THAN WE'VE
SEEN IN THE PAST AND REALLY GET
TO THE ROOT OF THE CAUSE.
>> AS OPPOSED TO THAT UNIVERSAL
BACKGROUND CHECK, AN AMENDMENT
OFFERED INSTEAD OF THAT WOULD
ALLOW FUNDING ARMED SAFETY
OFFICERS IN SCHOOLS.
HOW WOULD THAT WORK?
>> I THINK REPRESENTATIVE
KLEEFISCH MADE SOME GREAT POINTS
WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
WE SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
PROTECTING PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
EVERY
EVERYWHERE YOU GO, WHETHER IT'S
DIGNITARIES OR LARGE AMOUNTS OF
PUBLIC, WE HAVE ARMED GUARDS
THERE.
SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT'S A
HORRIBLE IDEA.
BUT OUR CHILDREN ARE OUR MOST
IMPORTANT ASSETS THAT ANYBODY
HAS IN THEIR LIFE.
THAT'S THE WAY WE VALUE KIDS.
SO WOULDN'T WE WANT TO PROTECT
THEM?
WHAT THIS BILL WOULD D IS
PROVIDE SOME GRANT FUNDING TO
SCHOOL DISTRICT TO MAKE THE
DECISION ON THEIR OWN IF THEY
WANT TO PUT SECURITY AND SAFETY
OFFICERS IN THE SCHOOLS.
AND WE WOULD HELP THEM PAY FOR
THAT IN ORDER TO DO THAT.
AND I THINK THAT'S A GREAT WAY
TO TAKE CARE OF A PROBLEM, AT
LEAST IN THE LONG RUN.
NOW, WE HAVE TO GET TO THE ROOT
OF WHAT THE CAUSE OF THIS
PROBLEM IS AND THAT'S GOING TO
BE A LITTLE BIT LONGER TIME.
BUT IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE,
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT STEP.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE ROOT IS?
>> I THINK -- I DON'T.
AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO
REALLY SPEND SOME TIME TO TAKE A
LOOK AT WHY TEN OR 15 OR 20
YEARS AGO OUR KIDS NEVER EVEN
HAD THESE IDEAS TO GO AND SHOOT
UP A SCHOOL OR DO THINGS LIKE
THIS.
AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY
HAVE THESE IDEAS.
SO WHY?
WHAT HAS CHANGED IN OUR SOCIETY
TO MAKE OUR YOUNG PEOPLE FEEL
LIKE THIS IS -- I DON'T WANT TO
SAY ACCEPTABLE, BECAUSE I DON'T
THINK THEY THINK IT'S A
CCEPTABLE, BUT THEY'RE DOING IT
-- THEY WANT TO BE FAMOUS OR
THEY THINK IT'S A MEANS THAT CAN
BE USED.
WE NEED TO REALLY TAKE A LOOK AT
THAT.
I THINK FOCUSING IN MAYBE ON THE
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES IS GOING TO
BE KEY.
>> THERE'S A LOT OF TALK RIGHT
NOW ABOUT BANNING ASSAULT TYPE
WEAPONS.
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT?
>> AGAIN, IN 2016, ACCORDING TO
THE FBI STATS, WE HAD A LITTLE
OVER 300 PEOPLE KILLED WITH LONG
GUNS.
WE HAD OVER 700 PEOPLE KILLED
JUST BY BEING KICKED ORB OR BEATEN
TO DEATH AND 1200 KILLED IN
STABBING DEATHS.
SO WE'RE FOCUSING ON THE VEHICLE
THAT HAS BEEN USED TO COMMIT THE
CRIME, BUT WE'RE NOT FOCUSING ON
WHAT IS CAUSING THE CRIME TO BE
COMMITTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND THAT I THINK IS WHERE OUR
FOCUS NEEDS TO BE.
BECAUSE WE COULD PASS SOME
TOUGHER, ADDITIONAL GUN LAWS.
WE COULD PASS BACKGROUND CHECKS
AND WE'LL PAT OURSELVES ON THE
BACK AND SAY WE DID SOMETHING.
BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE REALLY
ADDRESSED THE PROBLEM UNTIL WE
FIND OUT WHAT IS CAUSING IT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
REPRESENTATIVE SANFELIPPO, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
HE ALSO SAYS HE'S ALL FOR ARMING
SCHOOL TEACHER NOTICE WISCONSIN.
IN ADDITION TO CALLING FOR
BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PEOPLE
BUYING AT GUN SHOWS OR ONLINE,
THEY ALSO CALL FOR BANNING
PEOPLE WITH MISDEMEANOR DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE CONVICTIONS FROM BUYING
FIREARMS AND A BAN ON BUMP S
TOPS.
THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO SEE ARMED
TEACHERS AND OUR OWN ATTORNEY
GENERAL IS ALSO OPEN TO IT.
WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?
>> WELL, TEACHERS ARE NOT ASKING
TO BE ARMED AND STUDENTS ARE NOT
ASKING FOR ARMED GUARDS AT THEIR
SCHOOLS.
WHAT THEY ARE ASKING US TO DO IS
PREVENT DANGEROUS PEOPLE FROM
GETTING WEAPONS IN THE FIRST
PLACE.
ADDRESS THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE
WITH WHAT'S GOING ON WITH PEOPLE
GETTING EASY ACCESS TO FIREARMS.
>> DON'T ARMED OFFICERS IN
SCHOOLS, THOUGH, ADDRESS ONE
PRONG OF SCHOOL SAFETY?
>> YOU KNOW, I SHOULD SAY THE
SCHOOL IN FLORIDA WHERE THE
HORRIBLE RECENT MASSACRE
OCCURRED, THEY DID HAVE AN ARMED
GUARD THERE.
IT DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE IT CHANGES
ANYTHING.
WHAT WE DO KNOW IS BACKGROUND
CHECKS FROM HELP PREVENT A
DANGEROUS PERSON FROM GETTING
WEAPONS.
20% OF GUN SALES ARE NO
QUESTIONS ASKED.
AND SO WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO
TAKE A LOT OF STEPS, MY
COLLEAGUES AND I, MY DEMOCRAT
COLLEAGUES AND I KNOW THERE'S
GOING TO BE A LOT OF STEPS
NEEDED TO STEM THIS TIDE OF GUN
VIOLENCE.
BACKGROUND CHECKS IS A COMMON
SENSE FIRST STEP.
IT'S GOING TO ADDRESS SOME OF
THE ISSUES.
>> IN THE CASE OF THE FLORIDA
SHOOTER IT COULDN'T HAVE
PREVENTED HIM BECAUSE HE BOUGHT
IT FROM A GUN STORE.
>> RIGHT.
WE HAVE MANY OTHER LAWS THAT ARE
PENDING.
WE HIGHLIGHTED THREE COMMON
SENSE LAWS IN OUR PLEA TO
REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS BECAUSE
WE THOUGHT HOW COULD ANYONE
OPPOSE THESE LAWS?
90% OF OUR NATION SUPPORTS
BACKGROUND CHECKS.
IN WISCONSIN POLLING, BACKGROUND
CHECKS ARE SUPPORTED BY EVERY
COMMUNITY.
DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE RURAL,
SUBURBAN, URBAN.
SO WE THOUGHT THESE THREE
PROPOSALS WE WERE HIGHLIGHTING
THAT HAD BEEN SITTING IN THE
LEGISLATURE WITH NO ACTION WERE
JUST SO COMMON SENSE THAT NO ONE
COULD OPPOSE THEM.
WE HAVE A LOT OF OTHER PIECES OF
LEGISLATION, GUN LEGISLATION.
I HAVE A 48-HOUR WAITING PERIOD.
THERE'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE A
RED FLAG PIECE OF LEGISLATION
INTRODUCED, WHERE A PARENT OR
LAW ENFORCEMENT COULD FLAG A
DANGEROUS PERSON FOR A JUDGE, SO
MAYBE THAT WOULD HAVE HAD A
DIFFERENCE.
FLORIDA DOES NOT HAVE THAT TYPE
OF LAW.
WE'VE HAD INCIDENTS IN WISCONSIN
THAT MAYBE COULD HAVE BEEN
STOPPED WITH A BACKGROUND CHECK.
WE HAD A HORRIBLE INCIDENT AT A
SPA IN THE BROOKFIELD AREA.
THAT SHOOTER WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO
HAVE A GUN.
THERE WAS A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST HIM.
WE KNOW BACKGROUND CHECKS WILL
NOT SOLVE ALL OF HUR OUR PROBLEMS,
BUT IT'S A COMMON SENSE FIRST
STEP.
>> WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE
STATUS OF ANY RED FLAG LAW?
WE SPOKE TO THAT EARLIER IN THE
PROGRAM.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK
THE MAJORITY WOULD BE RESPONSIVE
TO?
>> THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE GOING
TO FIND OUT.
I DON'T THINK REPUBLICANS ARE
GOING TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THAT.
IF THEY'RE NOT RESPONSIVE TO
BACKGROUND CHECKS.
BUT, LOOK.
WE'RE GOING TO KEEP TRYING.
I'M A MOM OF TWO KIDS.
I HAVE TWO CHILDREN, I HAVE A
LITTLE BOY IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
AND A MIDDLE SCHOOLER.
THESE STUDENTS, I HEARD FROM THE
EAST HIGH STUDENTS.
THEY KALE UP AND CAME UP AND JOINED US AND
SAID PLEASE PROTECT US.
WE NEED YOU TO DO SOMETHING.
WE DON'T FEEL SAFE GOING TO
SCHOOL.
WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO OUR
CHILDREN TO DO ABSOLUTELY
EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN TO STEM
THIS HORRIBLE TIDE.
IT'S NOT HAPPENING IN OTHER
COUNTRIES.
YOU DON'T HEAR ABOUT MASS S
HOOTINGS.
THERE'S CERTAINLY MENTALLY ILL
PEOPLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
ONE OF THE KEY INGREDIENTS IS
EASY ACCESS TO FIREARMS TO
PEOPLE WHO ARE DANGEROUS.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT
ANNING AR-15s?
>> IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD LOOK
AT.
ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE.
I'VE NOT SEEN A PIECE OF
LEGISLATION THAT IS CRAFTED IN A
WAY THAT I THINK ISN'T EASY TO
GET AROUND.
SOMETIMES WHAT YOU DO SHALL --
WE SAW THIS WITH THE FEDERAL
ASSAULT WEAPON BAN IS IT'S EASY
TO GET AROUND.
WE TALKED ABOUT AMMUNITION
CAPACITY LIMITATIONS.
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE
ALSO LOOK AT.
BUT WE PROBABLY HAVE NOW 10 TO
15 DIFFERENT PIECES OF GUN
SAFETY LEGISLATION.
NONE OF IT'S MOVING IN THIS
LEGISLATURE.
REPUBLICANS ARE STOPPING IT ALL
FOR NO GOOD REASON EXCEPT
THEY'RE IN THE GRIP OF THE NRA.
AND THAT'S THE REALITY THAT WE
HAVE HERE.
>> WE NEED TO LEAVE IT THERE.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR, THANKS
VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OTHER BILLS IN MOTION IN WEEK
AT THE STATE CAPITOL INCLUDE
ASSEMBLY PASSAGE OF '$80 MILLION
JUVENILE CROSS-EXAMINATIONS P
LAN.
IT HEADS TO THE SENATE.
ALSO THIS WEEK THE SENATE PASSED
A BILL THAT ALLOWS DEVELOPERS TO
FILL WETLANDS WITHOUT A PERMIT.
NINE OF GOVERNOR WALKER'S TEN
BILLS SAW FINAL PASSAGE THIS
WEEK, MOSTLY ALONG PARTY LINES.
THE GOVERNOR CALLED THE RAFT OF
BILLS "WISCONSIN WORKS FOR
EVERYONE" WELFARE REFORM.
SEVERAL MEASURES MADE CHANGES TO
WISCONSIN'S FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
CALLED FOODSHARE.
MULTIMEDIA JOURNALIST MARISA
WOYCHIK EXPLAINS THE CHANGES IN
TONIGHT'S SEGMENT.
>> AN AVERAGE OF 682,000 PEOPLE
RECEIVED FOODSHARE BENEFITS IN
WISCONSIN IN 2017.
WISCONSIN FOODSHARE BENEFITS ARE
ENTIRELY FEDERALLY-FUNDED.
IN 2015, WORK REQUIREMENTS WERE
ESTABLISHED FOR ENROLLEES TO
RECEIVE BENEFITS.
SINCE THEN, 85,981 PEOPLE HAVE
LOST THEIR BENEFITS DUE T NOT
MEETING WORK REQUIREMENTS.
JUST OVER 25,000 HAVE GAINED
EMPLOYMENT UNDER THE PROGRAM.
NEW LEGISLATION WOULD REQUIRE
ABLE-BODIED PARENTS TO WORK IF
THEIR CHILD IS OVER THE AGE OF
SIX.
LEGISLATION WOULD ALSO CHANGE A
MINIMUM WORK REQUIREMENT FROM 20
HOURS PER WEEK TO 30.
>> MULTIMEDIA JOURNALIST MARISA
WOYCHIK ON THE FOODSHARE C
HANGES.
>> IN TONIGHT'S INSIDE LOOK,
SOME OF THOSE NUMBERS STAND OUT,
LIKE FOUR TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE
LOSING BENEFITS AS GAINING
EMPLOYMENT.
AND THAT'S BEFORE THE LATEST
CHANGES TAKE EFFECT.
WE TURN TO REACTION FROM FEEDING
WISCONSIN, THE STATEWIDE NETWORK
OF FOOD BANKS AND ITS EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR DAVID LEE.
SO WHY IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING ARE
MORE THAN 85,000 PEOPLE NOT
MEETING THE WORK REQUIREMENT AND
THEN BEING INELIGIBLE FOR THEIR
FOODSHARE BENEFIT?
>> WELL, I THINK THERE ARE A LOT
OF PEOPLE IN OUR STATE THAT
EXPERIENCE SOME CHALLENGES TO
ENGAGING WITH THE LABOR MARKET,
WHETHER THAT'S JOB TRAINING AS
PROVIDED BY FSET OR JUST REGULAR
JOBS, RIGHT.
SO WHILE THE STATE HAS ALLOWED
PEOPLE TO SATISFY THEIR WORK
REQUIREMENT OVER THE LAST FEW
YEARS BY PARTICIPATING IN FSET,
PEOPLE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET TO
THE FSET OFFICE OR THEY MIGHT
LACK TRANSPORTATION OR CHILD
CARE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO
PARTICIPATE.
>> NOW, YOU SAY FSET AND THAT
STANDS FOR FOODSHARE EMPLOYMENT
AND TRAINING PROGRAM?
>> THAT'S CORRECT, THE WORK
TRAINING PROGRAM.
>> YOU HAVE SPOKEN FAVORABLY
ABOUT THAT PROGRAM.
>> WELL, WE BELIEVE THAT A GOOD
JOB IS THE BEST WAY TO FIGHT
HUNGER AND THE BEST WAY OUT OF
POVERTY.
I THINK WHEN THE PROGRAM WORKS
FOR THE 25,000 PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN CONNECTED TO JOBS, I THINK
WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT IS A GREAT
OUTCOME FOR THEM AND WE HOPE
THAT THEY ARE ON THE WAY TOWARDS
A BETTER TOMORROW.
BUT AS YOU MENTIONED, FAR TOO
MANY PEOPLE HAVE EITHER BEEN
REFERRED TO THE PROGRAM AND HAVE
BEEN AGED OUT OF THE PROGRAM OR
JUST DIDN'T PARTICIPATE.
AND I THINK WHILE THE PROGRAM
WORKS FOR THE FOLKS WHO GOT
CONNECTED TO JOBS, FOR THE FOLKS
WHO DIDN'T I THINK UNDERSTANDING
AND FINE-TUNING HOW THE PROGRAM
WORKS CAN LEAD TO BETTER O
UTCOMES FOR THOSE FOLKS.
I THINK THE QUESTION THAT WE ARE
REALLY WRESTLING WITH IS HOW CAN
WE ENSURE THE PROGRAM WORKS FOR
EVERYBODY?
>> ARE PEOPLE LISTENING AT THE
STATE LEVEL IN TERMS OF
FINE-TUNING TO MAKE IT WORK
BETTER?
>> DURING THE SPECIAL SESSION ON
WELFARE REFORM WE ASKED OUR
LEGISLATORS TO SLOW DOWN ON THIS
PROCESS, BECAUSE GOOD POLICY
TAKES TIME.
AND FROM THE INTRODUCTION OF THE
SPECIAL SESSION BILLS THAT
REALLY CHANGED HOW THE FOODSHARE
PROGRAM WORKS, THE WHOLE PROCESS
TOOK ABOUT THREE WEEKS.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THREE
WEEKS IS A GOOD ENOUGH TIME TO
MAKE GOOD POLICY.
>> HOW IN YOUR MIND WILL
INCREASING THE REQUIRED NUMBER
OF WORK HOURS AFFECT THE NUMBERS
OF PEOPLE WHO EITHER GAIN
EMPLOYMENT OR LOSE ELIGIBILITY?
>> WE ARE REALLY, REALLY
CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.
RIGHT NOW THE WORK REQUIREMENTS
ARE 20 HOURS.
BY INCREASING IT TO 30 AND ALSO
EXPANDING IT TO FAMILIES WITH
CHILDREN, WE BELIEVE THAT REALLY
INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF
CHALLENGES THAT PEOPLE WILL
EXPERIENCE, RIGHT?
SO WE HELP PEOPLE WITH FOODSHARE
THROUGH OUR ORGANIZATION.
WE GIVE THEM GOOD INFORMATION TO
MAKE A GOOD DECISION ON THEIR
OWN WHETHER OR NOT THEY TO WANT
APPLY.
WE HEAR FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE
THAT THEY'RE ALREADY WORKING AND
THEY'RE WORKING 20, 25 HOURS, 28
HOURS.
THEY WANT MORE HOURS, BUT THEY
JUST EITHER AREN'T AVAILABLE
WHERE THEY LIVE OR THEY CAN'T
GET THEM FROM THEIR EMPLOYER OR
DUE TO SCHEDULING.
THESE ARE FOLKS WHO ARE WORKING
HARD, PLAYING BY THE RULES AND
JUST TRYING TO UTILIZE FOODSHARE
AS IT'S INTENDED, AS AN INCOME
SUPPORT TO HELP THEM HAVE THE
NUTRITION THEY NEED TO LIVE A
BETTER LIFE.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT BY
INCREASING THIS WORK R
EQUIREMENT, SOME OF THOSE FOLKS
ARE REALLY GOING TO SORT OF GET
CAUGHT IN AN UNMANAGEABLE
CATCH-22.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE
ASSET TEST?
IF SOMEBODY HAS A HOUSE THAT'S
$320,000 OR A $20,000 CAR,
SHOULD THEY BE ELIGIBLE FOR FOOD
STAMPS?
>> I THINK WE SHOULDN'T MAKE
POLICY THAT INCENTIVIZES PEOPLE
TO GET RID OF THEIR ASSETS IF
THEY FALL ON TOUGH TIMES.
THINGS CAN CHANGE ON A DIME.
IF YOU'VE DONE THE RIGHT THING
YOUR WHOLE LIFE, BUILT ASSETS, I
DON'T THINK THAT IF YOU LOSE A
JOB OR GET INTO A MEDICAL
SITUATION THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO
MAYBE SELL YOUR HOUSE IN ORDER
TO QUALIFY FOR TEMPORARY
ASSISTANCE, RIGHT?
I THINK THE ASSET TEST IS REALLY
A POLICY AIMED FOR THAT ONE OR
TWO BAD STORIES ABOUT THE PERSON
DRIVING SOME EXPENSIVE CAR.
WE DON'T KNOW THAT THAT PERSON
DIDN'T HAVE THAT EXPENSIVE CAR
WHEN THEY HAD A GREAT JOB AND
SUDDENLY MAY HAVE LOST A JOB DUE
TO A DOWNTURN IN THE ECONOMY AND
SOMEHOW STILL NEEDS THAT CAR IN
ORDER TO TAKE THEIR KIDS TO DAY
CARE, LOOK FOR NEW JOBS.
I THINK WE WANT TO CREATE A
SYSTEM WHERE PEOPLE ARE BUILDING
ASSETS TO GUARD AGAINST POVERTY,
RIGHT, NOT LIQUIDATE ASSETS SO
IT'S HARDER TO GET OUT OF
POVERTY.
>> GOOD POINT.
DAVID LEE, THANKS VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> NOW FOR NEWS ABOUT PUBLIC
BROADCASTING AND UW-MADISON.
THAT'S WHERE THE UW BOARD OF
REGENTS ANNOUNCED THIS WEEK THAT
AS PART OF THE UW SYSTEM
RESTRUCTURING, WISCONSIN PUBLIC
RADIO AND TELEVISION WILL NOW BE
PART OF UW-MADISON.
OUR SERVICES WERE FORMERLY
OVERSEEN BY UW-EXTENSION.
OUR BROADCASTING LICENSES WILL
CONTINUE TO BE HELD BY THE BOARD
OF REGENTS.
WE EXPECT NO CHANGES IN OUR
PROGRAMMING OR POLICIES.
FINALLY TONIGHT, ANOTHER
REMINDER THAT STATE SUPREME
COURT CANDIDATES REBECCA DALLET
AND MICHAEL SCRENOCK WILL DEBATE
HERE ON WISCONSIN PUBLIC
TELEVISION AND RADIO ON FRIDAY
NIGHT, MARCH 30, AT 7:00 P.M.
THAT IS ALL FOR TONIGHT'S
PROGRAM.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.
>> FUNDING FOR "HERE AND NOW" IS
PROVIDED, IN PART, BY FRIENDS OF
WISCONSIN PUBLIC TELEVISION.
>> FOR MORE INFORMATION ON "HERE
AND NOW'S" 2018 ELECTION
COVERAGE, GO TO