EVOLVING LEGAL CASE, THE RESULTS
OF WHICH MAY RESULT IN HUNDREDS
OF THOUSANDS OF WISCONSIN VOTERS
GETTING PURGED FROM THE STATE
REGISTRATION ROLLS.
THESE ARE VOTERS THE STATE
ELECTIONS COMMISSION BELIEVES
HAVE CHANGED ADDRESS.
THE COMMISSION IS LEGALLY
REQUIRED TO SEND A NOTICE TO
THESE VOTERS ASKING THEM TO
CONFIRM THEIR CURRENT ADDRESS.
THOSE WHO DO NOT RESPOND ARE TO
BE REMOVED FROM THE REGISTRATION
ROLLS.
THERE ARE MORE THAN 200,000 SUCH
VOTERS.
A LOT HAPPENED THIS WEEK.
AN OZAUKEE COUNTY JUDGE HELD
PEOPLE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR
DIS'HE
DISOBEYING HIS RECORD.
A LOT OF PEOPLE'S VOTER
REGISTRATIONS ARE ON THE LINE.
AND A LOT TO UNPACK WITH
UW-MADISON PROFESSOR OF
POLITICAL SCIENCE DAVID CANON.
THANKS FOR BEING HERE.
>> GOOD TO BE HERE.
>> SO IT COULD BE SAID THAT THIS
IS ALL EM BRAILD IN THE BOILED IN EMBROILED IN THE COURTS
AND CONTROVERSY, BUT IT IS ON
HOLD FOR THE MOMENT.
HOW INTERESTING IS IT TO YOU
THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT
DECLINED TO TAKE THIS CASE AT
THIS TIME?
>> I THINK IT'S VERY
INTERESTING.
A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE EXPECTING
THEM TO GET QUICK RESOLUTION.
IT GUARANTEES THIS WILL DRAG
WELL INTO THE YEAR, MAYBE PAST
THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS.
NOW THERE WILL BE A HEARING AT
THE APPEALS COURT LEVEL.
PLUS WE HAVE THE PARALLEL CASE
IN FEDERAL COURT RIGHT N
THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE THAT WON'T
HAVE ANY FINAL LEGAL RESOLUTION
TO THIS UNTIL AFTER THE
NOVEMBER ELECTION, WHICH INDEED
WAS THE COMMISSION'S ORIGINAL
INTENT ANYWAY, IS TO NOT REMOVE
THOSE VOTERS UNTIL AFTER THE
ELECTION.
THIS MAY BE THE WAY IT WILL PLAY
OUT.
>> IT LEAVES THESE VOTERS, THE
RECIPIENTS OF THESE LEADERS,
POTENTIALLY CONFUSED.
>> WELL, RIGHT.
ESPECIALLY THE PEOPLE WHO
HAVEN'T MOVED.
LIKE ARE THEY OKAY OR NOT?
ARE THEY GOING TO BE REMOVED
FROM THE ROLLS OR DO THEY NEED
TO REPLY TO UPDATE THEIR STATUS
WITH VOTER REGISTRATION?
>> YOU SAID THAT THIS
CIRCUMSTANCE IS RIGHT OUT OF A
BOOK CALLED "THE VOTING WARS."
HOW SO?
>> THERE'S A BOOK BY ONE OF THE
NATION'S EXPERTS ON VOTING
PROCEDURES WHO MADE THIS
ARGUMENT THAT ADMINISTRATION
ELECTIONS USED TO BE NONCON
NONCONTROVERSIAL.
BUT IN THE LAST DECADE THIS HAS
BECOME A PARTISAN BATTLEFIELD
WHERE REPUBLICANS HAVE FOCUSED
ON ELECTION INTEGRITY AND
FIGHTING VOTER FRAUD.
DEMOCRATS FOCUS ON GETTING MORE
ACCESS TO THE POLLS.
SO WHAT YOU YOU SEE REPLAYED OVER
AND OVER AGAIN IS VOTER I.D.
LAWS AND RESTRICTING ACCESS TO
EARLY VOTING TO TRY TO LIMIT
VOTING, WHEREAS DEMOCRATS ARE
TRYING TO DO THE OPPOSITE.
SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF
THOSE KINDS OF EFFORTS AIMED AT
TRYING TO EITHER PREVENT PEOPLE
FROM VOTING AS EASILY OR
ALLOWING PEOPLE TO VOTE.
AND SO ON A CONTINUUM OF THE
MOST EGREGIOUS VOTER SUPPRESSION
TO THE NOT AS HARMFUL, I WOULD
PUT THIS ON THE MORE NORMAL
POLITICS SIDE OF THINGS.
EVERYONE NEEDS TO UPDATE VOTER
ROLLS.
THE QUESTION IS ONE OF TIMING.
DO WE DO THIS RIGHT AWAY OR WAIT
UNTIL AFTER THE
NOVEMBER ELECTIONS, WHAT THE
COMMISSION WANTED TO DO.
>> ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL, IF
IMPEACHMENT IS INDEED, AS YOU'VE
SAID, A POLITICAL PROCESS, HOW
DOES THE OATH OF IMPARTIALITY
TAKEN BY SENATORS SQUARE WITH
THAT TODAY?
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
WE TALKED ABOUT JAMES MADISON'S
VIEW OF THIS.
HIS BIGGEST FEAR WAS HAVING
PARTISAN POLITICS ENTER THE
PROCESS OF IMPEACHMENT.
WE'VE DEFINITELY SEEN THAT
HAPPEN FROM DAY ONE WITH MITCH
MCCONNELL SAYING HE'S GOING TO
BE WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE
PRESIDENT.
THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE AN
IMPARTIAL JUROR IN THAT PROCESS.
BUT DEMOCRATS AS WELL HAVE
INDICATED THAT THEY'RE VERY
LIKELY TO VOTE TO REMOVE
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
AND SO IN THIS ERA OF PARTISAN
POLITICS, THE NOTION OF THESE
IMPARTIAL JURORS IS LAUGHABLE.
IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
THE BEST WE CAN HOPE FOR IS THEY
DO ALLOW FOR A MORE FULL HEARING
OF THE EVIDENCE.
>> WELL, SPEAKING OF THAT, IF
SENATOR MCCONNELL DOES NOT ALLOW
TESTIMONY FROM WITNESSES, IS
THAT WTHE FOUNDING FATHERS,
THE FRAMERS, KIND OF HAD IN MIND
FOR THIS PROCESS?
>> WELL, THE PROBLEM WITH THE
CONSTITUTION WHEN IT COMES TO
IMPEACHMENT IS IT DOESN'T GIVE
TEE DALE
DETAIL IN TERMS OF HOW THAT
TRIAL WILL BE CONDUCTED.
WE HAVE THE PRECEDENT OF THE
IMPEACHMENTS OF ANDREW JOHNSON
AND BILL CLINTON.
WE DID HAVE TESTIMONY FROM
WITNESSES AND IT WAS MORE LIKE A
FULL TRIAL WHERE YOU WOULD HEAR
EVIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES AND THE
SENATE WOULD DECIDE.
THAT IS MORE THE GOVERNING SORT
OF PRECEDENT, IS THE ACTUAL
PRACTICES RATHER THAN THE
CONSTITUTION ITSELF.
>> WE'LL SEE.
ANY TELLING HOW CHIEF JUSTICE
JOHN ROBERTS WILL SEE HIS ROLE?
BECAUSE HE IS THE PRESIDING
OFFICER.
>> RIGHT.
>> BUT SEE HIS ROLE WHEN IT
COMES TO POTENTIALLY BREAKING A
50-50 TIE FOR AND AGAINST THE
CALLING OF WITNESSES?
>> WHAT KINDS OF ROLE IS HE
GOING TO PLAY?
TWO PRIOR EXAMPLES OF JOHNSON
AND CLINTON, IN THE FIRST
EXAMPLE OF THE JOHNSON
IMPEACHMENT CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE
WAS VERY MUCH OPPOSED TO I DON'T
KNOW SON.
HE MADE HIS VIEWS KNOWN.
HE DID HAVE MULTIPLE RULINGS AND
BREAK TIES.
WHEREAS IN THE CLINTON EXAMPLE
CLEAVE JUSTICE REHNQUIST WAS ON
THE OPPOSITE END OF THE
SPECTRUM.
HE WAS NOT THAT ENGAGED IN
MAKING CRITICAL DECISIONS.
AFTERWARDS HE QUOTED ONE OF HIS
FAVORITE LINES WHERE HE SAID I
DID NOTHING IN PARTICULAR AND I
DID IT RATHER WELL.
SOME PEOPLE THINK ROBERTS WELL
ERR TO THAT SIDE OF CAUTION.
BUT HE MAY BE FORCED TO TAKE THE
POSITION IN THE TIE SCENARIO
THAT YOU JUST OUTLINED, WHERE
RIGHT NOW IF THE VOTE WAS HELD
TODAY ON WITNESSES, THERE'S A
CHANCES IT COULD BE, BECAUSE
THREE REPUBLICANS HAVE SAID THEY
WOULD LIKE TO SEE WITNESSES.
THAT PUTS US RIGHT AT 50.
SO THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAY HAVE TO
BREAK THAT TIE