GOVERNOR AND DEMOCRATS, THIS
WEEK REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
FORGED AHEAD WITH VOTING ON
ELECTION DAY.
THEY FOUND SUPPORT IN THEIR
EFFORTS FROM THE WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT AND THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT.
TONIGHT, ASSEMBLY MAJORITY
LEADER JIM STEINEKE JOINS US
WITH HIS INSIGHTS ON THE
COVID-19 PANDEMIC.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING
HERE.
>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
>> FORMER LONG TIME REPUBLICAN
AND NEENAH MAYOR, DEAN
KAUFERT, TOLD US THIS WEEK
THAT HE BELIEVES TUESDAY'S
VOTE DID SUPPRESS THE VOTE
BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE
OR POTENTIALLY MANY PEOPLE
WERE AFRAID TO STAND IN LINE.
WHAT'S YOUR REACTION TO THAT?
>> WELL, I THINK THE BIGGEST
THING IS WE KEPT THE CURRENT
ELECTION PROCEDURES IN PLACE.
WHETHER EVERYBODY WAS ABLE TO GO
THROUGH THE ABSENTEE BALLOT
PROCESS OR HAD TO APPEAR IN
PERSON, THAT'S OUR REGULAR
PROCESS.
THE GOVERNOR AGREED WITH US FOR
THREE WEEKS LEADING UP TO THE
ELECTION.
ONLY IN THE 11TH HOUR DID HE
CHANGE HIS MIND WHEN IT WAS TOO
LATE.
WE HAD ALREADY HAD HUNDREDS OF
BALLOTS CAST, HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS MORE OUT THERE.
TO CHANGE THE RULES IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE GAME JUST DIDN'T
MAKE SENSE AT THAT POINT.
WE HAD 3,900 LOCAL RACES THAT
WERE ON THE BALLOT THAT NEEDED
TO BE FILLED.
>> BUT YOU'RE NOT SUGGESTING
THAT HAD THE GOVERNOR MADE THE
DECISION TO DELAY THE IN-PERSON
VOTING EARLIER, THAT THE
MAJORITY WOULD HAVE GONE ALONG
WITH THAT.
>> NO.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE GOVERNOR
WAS RIGHT EARLY ON WHEN HE SAID
WE COULD NOT DELAY IT BECAUSE IT
WAS A GENERAL ELECTION.
OTHER STATES THAT DELAYED THEIR
ELECTIONS ALL HAD PRIMARIES.
IF WE HAD ONLY HAD A PRIMARY IN
PLACE, PRIMARY ELECTION, WE
COULD HAVE DELAYED IT.
BUT BEING THAT IT WAS A GENERAL
ELECTION FOR OVER 3900 LOCAL
SEATS IN THE STATE, WE JUST
DIDN'T HAVE THAT OPTION.
>> WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO
MISSING ABSENTEE BALLOTS THAT
ARE BEING REPORTED NOW, SOME
POTENTIALLY FROM YOUR DISTRICT?
>> YEAH.
IT'S REALLY TROUBLING.
I REALLY BELIEVE THAT IF
SOMEBODY REQUESTS AN ABSENTEE
BALLOT WITHIN THE TIME FRAME
GIVEN, THEY SHOULD BE GUARANTEED
TO GET THAT BALLOT BACK IN TIME
TO VOTE IN THE REGULAR ELECTION.
NOW, THIS FLIES IN THE FACE OF
WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE PROPOSING
RIGHT NOW, GOING TO AN
ALL-MAIL-IN BALLOT ELECTION WITH
NO IN-PERSON VOTING WHEN WE'RE
SEEING ALL THE PROBLEMS WE HAD.
IT'S A SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T MAKE
SENSE RIGHT NOW.
THE ONE WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN
PLACE WE SAW WORK BY AND LARGE
TO GET PEOPLE OUT THERE TO VOTE
THROUGH THE ABSENTEE PROCESS.
BUT WE DO HAVE TO TIGHTEN IT UP
TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE
REQUESTS ONE IN TIME GETS ONE IN
TIME.
>> WHAT IF ISSUES PERSIST INTO
NOVEMBER?
I MEAN, IS THE MAJORITY WILLING
TO ACCEPT TRYING TO FIX WHATEVER
ISSUES EXIST WITH THE ABSENTEE
BALLOTS?
>> YEAH.
I MEAN, I THINK WE NEED TO DO,
WORKING WITH THE ELECTIONS
COMMISSION, WHATEVER WE CAN TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE CURRENT
PROCESS WORKS FOR EVERYBODY.
WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE REALLY
PROPOSING -- AND IT'S NO SECRET
THAT THEY TEND TO USE CRISIS TO
MOVE POLICY.
THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET RID
OF VOTER I.D. FOR YEARS, EVER
SINCE IT WENT INTO PLACE.
THEY'RE TRYING TO USE THIS
CRISIS IN ORDER TO DO THAT,
PROPOSING SENDING OUT BALLOTS TO
EVERY SINGLE REGISTERED VOTER,
BUT THEN ELIMINATING THE VOTER
I.D. REQUIREMENT AND THE
SIGNATURE OF A WITNESS ON THAT
BALLOT.
SO THERE WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NO
PROTECTIONS IN PLACE TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE VOTER SENDING IN
THAT BALLOT IS WHO THEY SAY THEY
ARE.
>> MEANWHILE, LEGISLATIVE
REPUBLICANS HAVE COME UP WITH A
COVID-19 RESPONSE PACKAGE.
WHAT ARE ITS MOST IMPORTANT
PRONGS?
>> REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
DO HERE -- AND WE'RE WORKING
WITH LEADERSHIP ON THE DEMOCRAT
SIDE TO PUT TOGETHER A PACKAGE
THAT'S BIPARTISAN IN NATURE.
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE
SOME CHANGES TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT
PACKAGE TO SUSPEND THE ONE-WEEK
DELAY SO WE CAN CAPTURE SOME
FEDERAL MONEY THROUGH THE CARES
ACT.
WE HAVE TO MAKE MEDICAID CHANGES
TO CAPTURE ADDITIONAL MONEY
THROUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
THEN WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO
STREAMLINE SOME REGULATIONS TO
MAKE SURE WE CAN GET AS MANY
HEALTH CARE WORKERS INTO THE
FIELD TO RESPOND TO THAT CRISIS.
>> I UNDERSTAND IT WOULD ALLOW
THE JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEE TO
MAKE STATE SPENDING CUTS BECAUSE
OF POTENTIAL LOSS OF REVENUE.
THE GOVERNOR, AS YOU KNOW, TAKES
GREAT EXCEPTION TO THAT.
WHAT DO YOU SAY TO HIM ON THIS?
>> WELL, WE'VE REMOVED THAT
BECAUSE OF HIS OBJECTIONS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S
FRUSTRATING FOR US IS WE'VE BEEN
WORKING WITH OUR COLLEAGUES ON
THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE OF THE AISLE
TO PUT FORWARD A PACKAGE THAT WE
CAN ALL AGREE ON.
THE IMAGINE THAT THE GOVERNOR
RAN OUT TO THE MEDIA AND
RELEASED WAS JUST AN INITIAL
DRAFT, SOMETHING THAT WE WERE
GETTING INPUT FROM THE DEMOCRATS
ON, TRYING TO FIND OUT WHERE WE
CAN FIND SOME COMMON GROUND.
AND INSTEAD OF COMING TO US AND
LETTING US KNOW THAT HE HAD
OBJECTIONS TO IT, THE GOVERNOR
DECIDED TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE
MEDIA.
I'M NOT SURE WHY HE DID AND IT
DOESN'T HELP OUR NEGOTIATIONS.
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO MOVE
FORWARD TO TRY TO FIND A PACKAGE
WE CAN ALL VOTE ON AND SEND TO
THE GOVERNOR'S DESK.
>> BUT, AGAIN, THAT PROVISION
REGARDING JOINT FINANCE HAS BEEN
REMOVED FROM THE PACKAGE.
>> YES.
THE IDEA HERE -- AND I THINK
THERE'S UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT HERE
THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE REVENUE
DECLINE COMING INTO STATE
COFFERS.
SO WE HAD A $800 MILLION
PROJECTED SURPLUS BEFORE THIS
WHOLE CRISIS STARTED.
THAT'S GONE.
AND THEN WE'RE WORRIED THAT THE
NEW REVENUE PROJECTIONS WILL
SHOW A SHORTFALL.
SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS
SLOW DOWN THE RATE OF SPENDING
IN THE SECOND YEAR SO THAT WE
DON'T HAVE TO MAKE MASSIVE CUTS
GOING INTO THE NEXT BUDGET.
>> ALL RIGHT.
WELL, REPRESENTATIVE JIM
STEINEKE, WE TRULY APPRECIATE
YOU JOINING US AND GOOD LUCK TO
YOU, THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AS YOU WORK
THROUGH THIS COVID-19 RESPONSE
PACKAGE.
>> THANK YOU.
STAY SAFE, EVERYBODY.
>> THAT IS OUR PROGRAM FOR THIS