THE FIGHT OVER VOTING MAPS YET
TO BE DRAWN IN WISCONSIN
RATCHETED UP THIS WEEK ON A
CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY VOTE, THE
STATE SUPREME COURT AGREED TO
CONSIDER A LAWSUIT FROM
CONSERVATIVES RATHER THAN HAVING
IT START IN LOWER COURTS.
JUST A DAY EARLIER, A FEDERAL
COURT SET A JANUARY TRIAL DATE
FOR TWO REDISTRICTING LAWSUITS
BROUGHT BY DEMOCRATS WHO WANT
FEDERAL COURTS TO STEP IN SOONER
RATHER THAN LATER AS THE
REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE AND
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR TONY EVERS
ARE UNLIKELY TO REACH AGREEMENT
ON A REDRAW.
WE'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THE
COURT-SIDE WRANGLING, BUT FIRST
SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER ZAC
SCHULTZ SETS THE TABLE WITH THE
QUESTION "WHAT IS A FAIR MAP?"
>> I BELIEVE AND WISCONSINITES
DO THAT PEOPLE SHOULD GET TO
CHOOSE THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS,
NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
>> IN JANUARY OF 2020 GOVERNOR
EVERS ISSUED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER
CRAITDING THE PEOPLE'S MAPS
COMMISSION TO DRAW FAIR,
IMPARTIAL MAPS TO BE USED IN
STATE ELECTIONS FOR THE NEXT
DECADE.
WHEN ANNEMARIE MCCLELLAN
VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE AS A
COMMISSIONER, SHE WASN'T
EXPECTING THE PANDEMIC TO DELAY
THE CENSUS AND STRETCH THEIR
PROCESS OUT TO THE END OF 2021.
>> A LOT OF US FELT THAT, YOU
KNOW, BY END OF APRIL, EARLY
MAY WE WOULD BE DONE, WE COULD
GET ON WITH OUR LIVES.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
WE'VE GONE THIS FAR.
WE HAVE TO SEE IT OUT TO ITS
END.
>> THE CENSUS DATA IS HERE.
THE COMMISSION TOOK VIRTUAL AND
WRITTEN TESTIMONY FROM THOUSANDS
OF CITIZENS AND EXPERTS.
AND PEOPLE ACROSS THE STATE ON
USING ONLINE SOFTWARE TO CREATE
THEIR OWN MAPS AND PROPOSE THEM
TO BOTH THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
MAPS COMMISSION.
BUT STILL, NO ONE CAN ANSWER THE
DEFINING QUESTION SURROUNDING
REDISTRICTING: "WHAT MAKES A
MAP FAIR?"
>> WHEN PEOPLE THINK OF
FAIRNESS, FOR THE PUBLIC IT'S
LIKE DOES THIS REPRESENT THE
GREATER WILL OF THE MASS OF THE
PUBLIC?
>> FAIR IS IN THE EYES OF THE
BEHOLDER.
>> JOE HANDRICK IS A FORMER
REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLY
REPRESENTATIVE, BUT KNOWN ON
WORK FOR REDISTRICTING FOR
REPUBLICANS.
HE SAYS THE LAW DEMANDS WE TRY
TO KEEP COMMUNITIES TOGETHER AND
FOLLOW THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
>> THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE WHO
DEFINE FAIR MAPS AS WHAT'S THE
POLITICAL OUTCOME?
ARE THE DEMOCRATS OR THE
REPUBLICANS GETTING ENOUGH
SEATS?
BUT THAT'S NOT DEFINED OR
EXPECTED ANYWHERE IN THE
STATUTES OR IN THE CONSTITUTION.
>> THE VERY WORD "FAIR" THERE'S
SOME QUESTION OF PHILOSOPHY AND
ETHICS AND LAW.
>> JORDAN ELLENBERG IS A
PROFESSOR OF MAPS AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
HE SAYS WHEN IT COMES TO WHAT IS
A FAIR MAP, WE MIGHT BE ASKING
THE WRONG QUESTION.
>> THERE IS NOT REALLY A GOOD
ANSWER TO WHAT IS FAIR.
SO THEN YOU MAY SAY, WELL, WHAT
ARE WE EVEN DOING, ARE AM I HERE
TALKING ABOUT IT?
BECAUSE THERE IS A GOOD ANSWER
TO WHAT IS UNFAIR.
THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION.
>> HE SAYS THE BEST EXAMPLE OF
UNFAIR MAPS ARE THE CURRENT
WISCONSIN MAPS FOR CONGRESS,
STATE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DRAWN
BY REPUBLICANS A DECADE AGO.
>> I THINK IN MY PROFESSIONAL
OPINION THE CURRENT MAP WE HAVE
IS ONE OF THOSE WHERE IT'S VERY
CLEAR BY ANY METRIC YOU WOULD
USE THAT THAT MAP HAS BEEN
COOKED TO THE BENEFIT OF ONE
PARTY.
>> IF THE MAPS WERE COOKED, JOE
HANDRICK WAS ONE OF THE CHEFS.
IN 2011, HANDRICK WORKED FOR THE
PRIVATE LAW FIRM REPUBLICANS
HIRED TO DRAW THE CURRENT MAPS.
BUT HANDRICK SAYS THAT WASN'T A
GERRYMANDER.
>> DID WE CREATE A MAP FOR
REPUBLICAN MAJORITIES?
NO.
THE VOTERS CREATES THE
REPUBLICAN MAJORITY.
>> THIS IS THE POINT WHERE THEY
AGREE.
IN A STATEWIDE ELECTION,
WISCONSIN IS EVENLY DIVIDED
BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS.
ELLENBERG SAYS HE CAN CREATE
THOUSANDS OF COMPUTER-GENERATED
MAPS TO TEST WHAT THE AVERAGE
NUMBER OF WINS SHOULD BE FOR
EACH PARTY IN THE ASSEMBLY.
>> UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS, HOW
MANY REPUBLICANS WOULD THERE BE
IN THE STATE ASSEMBLY?
SPOILER.
I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THE
ANSWER.
PROBABLY ABOUT 55.
>> A LOT OF DEMOCRATS ARE
CONCENTRATED IN THE CITIES, SO
WHILE THEY CAN RACK UP VOTES IN
ASSEMBLY RACES, REPUBLICANS GET
THEIR MAJORITY IN DISTRICTS
CRAFTED TO GIVE THEM 60% OF THE
VOTE.
THE RANGE OF WINS FOR
REPUBLICANS SHOULD BE IN THE MID
50s, NOT THE 61 SEATS THEY
CURRENTLY HOLD.
>> THERE'S NOT A SINGLE ANSWER,
BUT THERE IS LIKE A REASONABLE
RANGE, AND, YOU KNOW, 62, 63 IS
NOT IN THAT RANGE.
IT'S LIKE WAY OUT THERE.
THAT BASICALLY LIKE NEVER
HAPPENS UNLESS YOU BUILD IN A
BIG ADVANTAGE.
>> HANDRICK SAYS CREDIT SHOULD
GO TO QUALITY REPUBLICAN
CANDIDATES, NOT JUST THE MAPS.
>> REPUBLICANS HAVE WON A COUPLE
SEATS THAT ARE DEMOCRATIC SEATS
ON TOP OF THAT.
SO THAT'S 57, 58.
THE MAP PROBABLY ACCOUNTS TORE
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND
THE SEATS THEY'RE AT.
>> ANNEMARIE MCCLELLAN SAYS THE
NUMBER ONE PRIORITY FOR THE
COMMISSION ISN'T WHICH PARTY
WINS, BUT KEEPING COMMUNITIES OF
INTEREST INTACT.
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ISN'T ONE
DEFINITION FOR A COMMUNITY OF
INTEREST.
OFTEN IT'S INTERPRETED TO MEAN
KEEPING COUNTIES, CITIES AND
VILLAGES IN THE SAME DISTRICT.
>> IT MIGHT BE SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
THAT'S ONE THING THAT WE HEARD A
LOT OF PEOPLE SAY, THAT I WANT
TO KEEP IT INTACT, BECAUSE
SOMETIMES SCHOOL DISTRICTS CROSS
MUNICIPALITIES OR COUNTY LINES.
>> THE COMMISSION WON'T IGNORE
THE PARTISAN OUTCOME, SINCE SO
MANY PEOPLE CONSIDER THAT THE
ULTIMATE TEST OF FAIRNESS.
>> AND LAST OF ALL MEASURES OF
PARTISAN FAIRNESS, EVERYTHING
ELSE BEING EQUAL, IF ONE MAP
SHOWS THAT IT'S MORE FAIR
PARTISAN-WISE, WE WOULD GO WITH
THAT.
>> HANDRICK SAYS ANY MAP
PRODUCED BY THE COMMISSION
SHOULD BE VIEWED AS A DEMOCRATIC
MAP.
>> IT'S NOT A NONPARTISAN
COMMISSION.
IT'S NOT A BIPARTISAN
COMMISSION.
IT'S A PARTISAN COMMISSION TO
ADVANCE THE INTEREST OF
DEMOCRATS.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH
THAT, BUT I WISH THEY COULD JUST
CALL IT THAT.
>> ELLENBERG SAYS ANY MAP
PRODUCED BY THE COMMISSION
SHOULD BE LOOKED AT THROUGH THE
SAME LENS YOU WOULD LOOK AT MAPS
CREATED BY THE REPUBLICANS.
BUT THE WAY EACH GROUP WENT
ABOUT CREATING THEM SHOULD BE
JUDGED.
>> THE OUTCOME HAS TO BE JUDGED,
BUT THE PROCESS IS MUCH BETTER.
>> WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE
STATE SUPREME COURT TOOK THE
REDISTRICTING LAWSUIT OVER LOWER
COURTS?
AND WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE
FEDERAL COURT ACTION?
ZAC SCHULTZ JOINS US NOW FROM
THE STATE CAPITOL.
HEY, ZAC.
>> HELLO, FRED.
>> SO THE CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY
ON THE STATE SUPREME COURT VOTED
TO TAKE THE CASE WITH LIBERAL
JUSTICES DISSENTING.
WHAT'S THE IMPLICATION OF THIS
CASE GOING TO THE HIGH COURT?
>> THE FIRST IMPLICATION IS
THEY'RE SKIPPING THE LOWER
LEVELS OF THE COURT.
USUALLY WHEN YOU GO TO LOCAL
COURT FIRST, THAT'S THE RECORD.
THERE'S A TRIAL THAT BRINGS IN
ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT DETERMINES
EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS AFTER
THAT.
THEN THERE WOULD BE AN APPELLATE
LEVEL.
SO IT WILL BE UP TO THE SUPREME
COURT JUSTICES IN A COUPLE HOURS
TO GATHER ALL THE FACTS IN ORDER
TO RULE ON WHETHER THEY'RE GOING
TO DRAW THESE MAPS.
>> ISN'T ALSO THE IMPLICATION
THAT IT'S A FRIENDLY COURT?
>> WELL, REPUBLICANS CERTAINLY
HOPE SO.
THEY THINK THEIR 4-3
CONSERVATIVE COURT, IN THIS CASE
HE RULED WITH THE CONSERVATIVES
TO BRING THIS CASE TO THE COURT
IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>> WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW
WITH THE FEDERAL LAWSUIT?
>> WELL, THAT'S ONGOING AS WELL
AND THAT'S THE COURT WHERE
DEMOCRATS WANT TO PLAY AND THINK
THEY'RE GOING TO GET A BETTER
OUTCOME.
THAT'S WHO'S DRAWN THE MAPS THE
LAST FEW TIMES IT WASN'T DRAWN
BY REPUBLICANS.
THE THREE PANEL JUDGES HAVE
ALREADY SET A TRIAL DATE FOR
JANUARY SAYING THEY WANT TO MOVE
THIS ALONG.
IN PART, THEIR DECISION TO SET
THAT TRIAL SAID WE HAVEN'T HEARD
MUCH FROM THE STATE AND WHETHER
THE STATE WILL ACTUALLY HAVE
THIS ARGUMENT DONE IN THEIR
COURTS AND THAT'S WHAT PROMPTED
THE STATE SUPREME COURT TO STEP
IN AND SAY WE CAN MOVE FORWARD
AS WELL.
SO YOU MIGHT HAVE TWO PLAYING
OUT AT THE SAME TIME.
THE FEDERAL COURT MIGHT GET PUT
ON HOLD.
IT'S UNCLEAR AT THIS POINT.
>.
>> MEANWHILE, THE REPUBLICANS
HAVE ASKED THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT TO THROW OUT THE FEDERAL
COURT WORK ON THIS IN WISCONSIN.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
THEY ABSOLUTELY -- REPUBLICANS
WANT TO SEE THIS DONE IN THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.
THEY'RE HOPING THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT WILL DISMISS THAT CASE SO
THE ONLY CASE THAT REMAINS IS
WITH THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT
FORCING THEM TO DECIDE OR DRAW
THE MAPS.
>> CERTAINLY PLAYING HARDBALL
HERE.
THE UNDERLYING IDEA IS THAT
EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THE
REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED
LEGISLATURE IS NOT GOING TO DRAW
NEW MAPS THAT GOVERNOR EVERS
WOULD APPROVE.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S PUTTING IT
TOO BLUNTLY.
BUT NOW REPUBLICANS EXPECT TO
PASS A RESOLUTION TUESDAY TO
KEEP THE MAPS PRETTY MUCH AS IS.
WHAT'S THE REACTION TO THIS?
>> WELL, THE IDEA IS THAT THEY
ALREADY HAVE MAPS THAT THEY
ENJOY.
THE LAST DECADE HAVE SHOWN US
THEY WIN BIG MAJORITIES.
DEMOCRATS SAY THAT'S BECAUSE
THEY'RE GERRYMANDERED.
SO ONLY SLIGHT ADJUSTMENTS
NEEDED FOR POPULATION WILL
LIKELY GIVE REPUBLICANS
MAJORITIES FOR THE NEXT DECADE.
SO THEY TO WANT PLAY OFF THE
MAPS THEY WROTE TEN YEARS AGO.
DEMOCRATS OF COURSE WOULD LIKE
TO SEE MUCH LARGER ADJUSTMENTS
AND THE IDEA OF PARTISAN
FAIRNESS TO HOPEFULLY EVEN OUT
THE SCORE SO THAT EVEN IN A WAVE
YEAR MAYBE DEMOCRATS COULD COME
CLOSER TO WINNING A MAJORITY.
>> IS THERE SOME PRECEDENT FOR
THIS?
WE'VE HAD THESE MAPS FOR TEN
YEARS.
WE DON'T NEED TO CHANGE THEM
MUCH.
IS THIS SOMETHING PEOPLE WHO ARE
GOING THROUGH REDISTRICTING DO?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
IT'S ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS.
BUT THE WHOLE THING ABOUT MAPS
IS THAT THERE REALLY AREN'T TOO
MANY HARD-SET LIMITS IN LAW.
YOU CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT
YOU SHOULD ONLY MAKE MINOR
ADJUSTMENTS.
BUT TEN YEARS AGO REPUBLICANS
COMPLETELY RE DID THE MAPS TO
GIVE THEM A MAJORITY.
DEMOCRATS WILL SAY IT'S
HYPOCRISY.
REPUBLICANS SAY WE WANT TO BE
CONSISTENT.
>> WE WILL WATCH HOW ALL THIS
WORKS OUT.
THIS IS CERTAINLY ON THE FAST
TRACK.
YOU'VE REPORTED ON LOCAL VOTING
BOUNDARY MAPS.
WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THOSE AND
WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE?
>> WELL, THE COUNTIES, VILLAGES,
CITIES ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF
THEIR REDISTRICTING PROCESS,
SEPARATE FROM WHAT THE STATE
ASSEMBLY AND CONGRESSIONAL MAPS
ARE.
I KNOW A LOT OF THE COUNTIES
HAVE JUST FINISHED UP THEIR
VERSIONS AND ARE SENDING THEM UP
TO THE LOCAL DISTRICTS.
IT'S UNCLEAR IF THOSE MAPS WILL
BE INCORPORATED INTO THE LARGER
ARGUMENTS, FEDERAL OR STATE
SUPREME COURT, OR IF THEY'LL
HAVE TO ADJUST THE MAPS ONCE WE
HAVE THE MAPS SET FOR CONGRESS
AND THE STATE LEGISLATURE.
>> I KNOW AS YOU REPORTED IN
YOUR STORY JUST A FEW MINUTES
AGO, THESE LOCAL BOUNDARIES ARE
REALLY IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE,
INCLUDING THINGS LIKE SCHOOL
DISTRICTS?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THERE'S A WIDE DEFINITION OF
WHAT IS A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST.
WATERSHED SCHOOL DISTRICTS,
COUNTY LINES, CITY LINES.
IT'S WIDE OPEN, FRED.
>> ALL RIGHT.
ZAC SCHULTZ, THANKS VERY MUCH