>> THE FOLLOWING PROGRAM IS A
PBS WISCONSIN ORIGINAL
PRODUCTION.
>> DEMOCRATS CALL FOR THE
REMOVAL OF AN ELECTION OFFICIAL.
THE LEGISLATURE MOVES FORWARD
WITH PLANS TO CHANGE THE CASH
BAIL SYSTEM.
AND A NEW CONGRESS LAYS OUT
DIVERGENT AGENDAS.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
TONIGHT ON "HERE AND NOW."
WHAT AN OBSCURE COMMITTEE VOTE
MEANS FOR A CONTROVERSIAL
THERAPY.
CONTINUED OUTRAGE OVER
STATEMENTS MADE BY A REPUBLICAN
ELECTION OFFICIAL.
AND THE FIRST IN A SERIES OF
INTERVIEWS WITH CANDIDATES FOR
THE STATE SUPREME COURT.
IT'S "HERE AND NOW" FOR
JANUARY 20TH.
FUNDING FOR "HERE AND NOW" IS
PROVIDED BY THE FOCUS FUND FOR
JOURNALISM AND FRIENDS OF PBS
WISCONSIN.
>> A REPUBLICAN WISCONSIN
ELECTIONS COMMISSIONER IS UNDER
FIRE WITH CONTINUING CALLS THIS
WEEK FOR HIS RESIGNATION.
THIS COMES AFTER COMMISSIONER
ROBERT SPINDELL WAS QUOTED
POST-ELECTION SAYING TO FELLOW
REPUBLICANS, "WE CAN BE
ESPECIALLY PROUD OF THE CITY OF
MILWAUKEE, CASTING 37,000 LESS
VOTES THAN CAST IN THE 2018
ELECTION, WITH THE MAJOR
REDUCTION HAPPENING IN THE
OVERWHELMING BLACK AND HISPANIC
AREAS.
DEMOCRATS CALL THIS BRAGGING
ABOUT VOTER SUPPRESSION ON THE
PART OF AN ELECTION OFFICIAL,
AND THIS WEEK STATE SENATE
DEMOCRATS CALLED FOR HIM TO
RESIGN.
COMMISSIONER SPINDELL JOINS US
NOW WITH HIS REACTION.
AND THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING
HERE.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> WHAT IS YOUR REACTION AND
RESPONSE TO THESE CALLS FOR YOU
TO RESIGN YOUR POSITION AS AN
ELECTIONS COMMISSIONER?
>> WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE
DEMOCRATS HAVE REALLY LOST
BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN FAILED
BIDEN POLICIES SUCH AS
INFLATION, SUBSTANDARD
EDUCATION, HIGH CRIME RATE, AND
THESE ARE SEVERAL OF THE ISSUES
THAT WE TRIED TO PUT FORTH ON
OUR RADIO COMMERCIALS AND OUR
TWICE-A-WEEK RADIO TALK SHOW.
THAT'S WHY MANY PEOPLE BECOME
DISENCHANTED COMING OUT TO VOTE,
INCLUDING THOSE IN THE MINORITY
COMMUNITY.
IN ADDITION, OF COURSE, THERE
WAS A LOSS OF POPULATION
SOMEWHAT IN THE CITY OF
MILWAUKEE, BUT ALSO THE HARD
WORK OF THE PEOPLE OF THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE CANDIDATES
THAT WE GOT OUT TO RUN AND SO
FORTH.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT SUPPRESSION,
YOU PROBABLY REMEMBER THE
APRIL 2020 ELECTION, I USED TO
BE A CITY OF MILWAUKEE ELECTION
COMMISSIONER FOR 18 YEARS, AND
IN MILWAUKEE, IT'S PROBABLY THE
EASIEST CITY ANYWHERE TO VOTE,
BECAUSE VERY RARELY DOES ANYBODY
HAVE TO WAIT EVEN DURING
NOVEMBER ELECTIONS MORE THAN
FIVE OR 10 MINUTES AND IF YOU
HAVE TO REGISTER, IF YOU WAIT
MORE THAN 15 MINUTES, THEY'LL
APOLOGIZE.
BUT IF YOU'RE GOING BACK TO THAT
18 -- OR THE ONE IN APRIL OF '2D
185 POLLING PLACES DOWN TO
5 POLLING PLACES, THE -- CENTER
SAID THAT WOULD REDUCE THE --
SUPPRESS THE BLACK VOTE 15%.
WHAT HAPPENED IN MILWAUKEE, THE
GENTLEMAN RUNNING FOR COUNTY
EXEC, CROWLEY, WON BY A THOUSAND
VOTES, THE INDIVIDUAL RUNNING
FOR CITY TREASURER LOST BY A
THOUSAND VOTES, LENA TAYLOR LOST
BY ABOUT 15,000 VOTES.
SO CERTAINLY THE SUPPRESSION WAS
NOT FROM THIS PROGRAM.
THE SUPPRESSION WAS SOMETHING
ALONG THIS LINE, TRY AND DO
SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE.
>> COMMISSIONER, YOUR COMMENTS
HAVE BEEN CALLED, QUOTE,
INCREDIBLY RACIST, BECAUSE OF
BEING PROUD, ACCORDING TO THAT
EMAIL THAT YOU WROTE, THAT IN
THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE, AMONGST
OVERWHELMINGLY BLACK AND
HISPANIC AREAS, 37,000 FEWER
VOTES WERE CAST.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ABOUT
BEING DESCRIBED AS INCREDIBLY
RACIST?
>> WELL, I'VE NEVER REALLY BEEN
DESCRIBED AS THAT BEFORE.
OVER THE YEARS, I'VE BEEN A --
I'VE DONE A GREAT DEAL FOR THE
BLACK COMMUNITY IN MILWAUKEE.
I WAS APPOINTED BY GOVERNOR
THOMPSON TO BE THE ONLY
NON-MINORITY MEMBER OF THE
GOVERNOR'S COMMITTEE ON MINORITY
BUSINESS.
HE THEN APPOINTED ME TO THE
GOVERNOR'S CENTRAL CITY
INITIATIVE, WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT
ALL SORTS OF PROGRAMS TO HELP
PEOPLE IN THE INNER CITY GET
JOBS, GET A HOUSE, GET SOMETHING
ALONG THAT LINE.
THAT WAS -- I WAS ON A WISCONSIN
CORRECTIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR A
WHILE, GOING AROUND TO PRISONS,
TRYING TO HELP PEOPLE TO KNOW
WHAT TO SAY IN TERMS OF GETTING
JOBS, BUT MORE IMPORTANT, FOR
OVER 25 YEARS, I WAS VICE CHAIR
OF CAREER YOUTH DEVELOP M, ONE
OF THE LARGEST SOCIAL SERVICE
AGENCIES IN MILWAUKEE, AND WE
HAVE SUCH PROGRAMS AS WE WERE
THE FIRST AGENCY IN THE COUNTRY
TO GET WITH A DRUG AND ALCOHOL
HOSPITAL TO START OUR OWN
OPERATION WITHIN THE FACILITY.
WE THEN PUT OUR OWN FACILITY
TOGETHER.
WE RAN IT WITH OUR OWN DOCTORS
AND WE EVEN BUILT AN INPATIENT
TREATMENT CENTER.
THERE'S ALL SORTS -- WE HAVE 30
PROGRAMS.
>> SO YOU REJECT THE
DESCRIPTION.
BUT IT'S NOT NEW FOR CANDIDATES
TO SAY, PLEASE VOTE FOR ME, BUT
IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT, DON'T VOTE
FOR MY OPPONENT.
DEMOCRATS DID THAT IN 2020 IN
TALKING TO MODERATE REPUBLICANS.
BUT ISN'T THERE A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THAT AND CELEBRATING THE
REDUCTION OF VOTES AMONGST A
POPULATION OF VOTERS THAT HAS
BEEN HISTORICALLY DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST THROUGHOUT OUR NATION'S
HISTORY?
>> WELL, REALLY THE THING I WAS
CELEBRATING WAS THE FACT THAT
FINALLY AFTER ALL THESE YEARS,
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF
WISCONSIN AND THE RNC FINALLY
RECOGNIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
BLACK VOTE, THE HISPANIC VOTE
AND NOT JUST TALK ANYMORE BUT
THEY ACTUALLY PUT THE RESOURCES
INTO THAT PROGRAMS SO THAT WE
MAY MAKE PROGRESS WITHIN THAT
AGENCY.
AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE
DISENCHANTED.
I KNOW THEY WERE -- THE DEMS
TRIED TO GET PEOPLE TO KNOCK ON
DOORS TO GET THEIR VOTE OUT.
THEY WERE PAYING $27 AN HOUR.
THEY COULDN'T GET PEOPLE TO DO
THAT.
PEOPLE WERE DISENCHANTED.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BLACK,
HISPANIC, THE WHITE COMMUNITIES
WHERE THE EFFORT IS TO TRY AND
GET THE PEOPLE THAT YOU HAVE
IDENTIFIED OUT TO VOTE, AND IF
THEY CAN'T, ALL THE ADVERTISING,
WHETHER IT BE MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS ON TELEVISION, THAT'S
ALL NEGATIVE ADVERTISING TRYING
TO SAY HOW BAD THE OTHER
CANDIDATE IS.
>> HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO SENATE
MAJORITY LEADER DEVIN LEMAHIEU
WHO REAPPOINTED YOU TO A
FIVE-YEAR TERM ABOUT WHETHER HE
CONTINUES TO SUPPORT YOU AS AN
ELECTIONS COMMISSIONER?
>> NO, I HAVE NOT, I HAVE NOT.
ALL HE WOULD SAY IS WELL, THE
DEMS ARE TRYING TO GET YOU FOR
THE FOURTH OR FIFTH TIME TO
RESIGN.
THEY'VE TRIED THAT ON SEVERAL
DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.
BECAUSE SIMPLY THEY DO NOT LIKE
MY GOING THROUGH AND MAKING SURE
THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS A
VOICE ON THE COMMISSION, AND
ALSO THAT WE WORK TOGETHER WITH
THE DEMOCRATS TO TRY AND MAKE
SURE THAT THE BEST SOLUTION FOR
THE PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN COMES
OUT OF SOME VERY HEAVY
DISCUSSIONS AMONG THE SIX OF US
ON THE WISCONSIN ELECTION
COMMISSION.
>> WE NEED TO LEAVE IT THERE.
WISCONSIN ELECTIONS COMMISSIONER
BOB SPINDELL, THANKS VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
HAVING ME.
>> WE SHOULD NOTE THAT
COMMISSIONER SPINDELL DECLINED
TO SPEAK ABOUT HIS ROLE AS AN
ALTERNATE OR FRAUDULENT 2020
ELECTOR.úSPEAKING IN THEIR DISTS
WEEK, CONGRESSMAN BRYAN STEIL, A
REPUBLICAN AND MARK POCAN, A
DEMOCRAT, POINT FINGERS ON THE
DEBT CEILING AND FORWARD THEIR
OWN AGENDAS FOR THE 118TH
CONGRESS.
>> YOU DON'T MESS AROUND WITH
THE DEBT CEILING UNLESS YOU
TRULY, YOU KNOW, ARE ON SOME
SORT OF A STRANGE DEATH WISH
BECAUSE IT'S JUST AWFUL FOR THE
COUNTRY.
SO OUR HOPE IS THAT CALMER HEADS
WILL PREVAIL AS TIME GOES ON.
>> I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE
FOOLHARDY IF WE SIMPLY JUST MADE
THE ONE PAYMENT ON THE CREDIT
CARD BUT DIDN'T CHANGE ANY OF
OUR BEHAVIOR, BECAUSE WE'RE
GOING TO SHOW BACKUP AGAIN NEXT
MONTH.
>> A BAN ON SO-CALLED CONVERSION
THERAPY HAS BEEN LIFTED IN
WISCONSIN.
REPUBLICAN MAJORITY MEMBERS ON A
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE BLOCKED
LICENSING RULES BANNING THERAPY
DESIGNED TO CHANGE THE SEXUAL
ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY
OF LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL OR
TRANSGENDER PEOPLE.
MARISA WOJCIK HAS MORE.
>> LAWMAKERS LIFTED THE BAN
DESPITE CONVERSION THERAPY BEING
DEEMED HARMFUL, INEFFECTIVE, AND
NON-EVIDENCE-BASED.
BY THE STATE'S EXAMINING BOARD
OF THERAPISTS AND COUNSELORS.
>> WHAT MAKES IT SO HARMFUL IS
THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE
SOMETHING THAT IS NOT
CHANGEABLE.
>> MATTHEW SHURKA, CO-FOUNDER OF
BORN PERFECT, TELLS HIS STORY OF
CONVERSION THERAPY AS A
CAUTIONARY TALE.
>> A LOT OF PARENTS REALLY ARE
BEING DUPED IN A WAY.
>> INCLUDING HIS OWN.
>> THEY WANTED TO SPEAK TO A
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL WHO COULD
GUIDE THEM AS PARENTS AND MYSELF
AS A YOUNG MAN.
>> IT'S ABOUT PROTECTING
CONSUMERS FROM HARM SO THAT
THEY'RE NOT PAYING MONEY AND
THINKING THAT THEY'RE GETTING A
LEGITIMATE THERAPY OR TREATMENT,
AND ACTUALLY WHAT THEY'RE
GETTING IS SOMETHING THAT HAS NO
THERAPEUTIC VALUE AND IS
ACTUALLY HARMFUL.
>> STARTING WHEN HE WAS 16,
SHURKA AND HIS FAMILY SPENT FIVE
YEARS AND $35,000 TO BE TOLD A
LITANY OF REASONS WHY HE WASN'T
NORMAL.
>> THE FIRST STEPS IN MY
DIAGNOSIS WAS THAT I WAS NOT
ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO MY MOTHER
AND TWO SISTERS, WHICH LASTED
THREE YEARS.
SOMEONE WHO'S IN A PROFESSIONAL
SETTING IS JUST LIKE PULLING
IRRESPONSIBLY THESE DIAGNOSES
THAT I HAVE TO EXPLAIN OR TRY TO
RATIONALIZE THAT WHAT I'M
EXPERIENCING IS NOT REAL.
>> SURVEY DATA FROM THE TREVOR
PROJECT FOUND THAT 44% OF LGBTQ
YOUTH IN WISCONSIN SERIOUSLY
CONSIDERED SUICIDE IN THE PAST
YEAR.
AND THOSE WHO UNDERWENT
CONVERSION THERAPY, OR WARNED OF
THE POSSIBILITY, WERE MORE THAN
TWICE AS LIKELY TO ATTEMPT
SUICIDE.
>> I THINK THIS IS WHERE THE
SUICIDALITY COMES IN, THIS IS
WHERE THE RUNNING AWAY FROM
HOME, BECAUSE EVERY LGBT PERSON
I'VE EVER SPOKEN TO KNOWS THEY
NEVER CHANGED.
>> ONE OF THE EXPERTS WHO
TESTIFIED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
IN OPPOSITION TO LIFTING THE BAN
ON CONVERSION THERAPY WAS BRIAN
MICHAEL.
HE'S THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
OF MENTAL HEALTH AMERICA OF
WISCONSIN.
HE JOINS US NOW.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
HAVING ME.
>> SO WE JUST HEARD FROM MATTHEW
SHURKA ABOUT HIS EXPERIENCE
HAVING UNDERGONE CONVERSION
THERAPY.
IN YOUR BELIEF, WHAT IS IT ABOUT
THE THERAPY THAT CAUSES SUCH
HARM, EVEN LEADING PEOPLE TO
SUICIDE?
>> WELL, REALLY WHAT A LOT OF
THE BAD AND ADVERSE EFFECTS COME
DOWN TO IS, YOU KNOW, MAKING A
YOUNG PERSON WHO'S LIVING THESE
THOUGHTS FEEL MORE REJECTED AND
ISOLATED, AND WE DO KNOW THAT
THOSE FEELINGS CAN LEAD TO
INCREASED RATES OF DEPRESSION,
SUICIDE ATTEMPT, SUICIDE
IDEATION.
YOUNG FOLKS WHO ARE PART OF THE
LGBTQ COMMUNITY ARE ALREADY AT
HIGHER RISK OF DEPRESSION AND
SELF-HARM, BUT WHEN THAT IS
COMPARED TO THOSE WHO FEEL
HIGHLY REJECTED BY THEIR
CAREGIVERS, BY THEIR FAMILIES,
THAT CAN RESULT IN NEARLY A NINE
TIMES HIGHER RATE OF ATTEMPTING
SUICIDE, SIX TIMES HIGHER RATE
OF DEPRESSION, AND ABOUT 3 1/2
MORE TIMES LIKELY OF ILLEGAL
DRUG USE AND HIV/AIDS.
>> SO WHO ARE THE THERAPISTS WHO
PROVIDE THIS CONVERSION
COUNSELING IF IT IS SO
OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSED BY
PROFESSIONALS?
>> SO UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T
HAVE A RUNNING LIST OF THOSE
INDIVIDUALS AND THERAPISTS WHO
DO ENGAGE IN THAT THERAPY OR IN
THOSE TYPES OF INTERVENTIONS,
DESPITE HOW MANY PROFESSIONAL
AND MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS HAVE
DISAVOWED AND DENOUNCED THIS
TYPE OF INTERVENTION, EVERYTHING
FROM AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD
AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY,
ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, THE
SCHOOL COUNSELOR ASSOCIATION.
BUT WHAT PARENTS AND FAMILIES
WHO ARE SEEKING SUFFICIENT AND
HELPFUL SUPPORT CAN LOOK FOR IS
THAT THIS TYPE OF INTERVENTION
MIGHT BE MASKED UNDER DIFFERENT
TYPES OF TERMS.
SO IT'S ALSO REFERRED TO AS
REPARATIVE THERAPY, OR IT COULD
BE REGARDED AS COULD BE CALLED
SEXUALITY COUNSELING OR SEXUAL
ATTRACTION FLUIDITY.
SO REALLY, THOSE WHO ARE
ENGAGING IN THIS PRACTICE,
THERE'S EVEN A WAY OF AVOIDING
THE KIND OF FLAGGING TERM OF
CONVERSION THERAPY BY SIMPLY
DESCRIBING IT AS SOMETHING ELSE
WHEN IN EFFECT, IT IS STILL
MAINTAINING THE SAME PURPOSE,
THAT THE SOCIAL WORK
ASSOCIATIONS WERE DENOUNCING OF
ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE SOMEONE'S
ORIENTATION, REALLY AGAINST
THEIR WILL OR AT A TIME WHEN
THEY'RE TOO -- THEY HAVEN'T
DEVELOPED TO THE POINT TO MAKE
THOSE DECISIONS.
>> AND GIVEN ALL OF THIS, WHAT
WAS YOUR REACTION WHEN THE
COMMITTEE VOTED TO LIFT THE BAN
ON CONVERSION THERAPY?
>> YOU KNOW, FOR THOSE WHO
ATTENDED THAT HEARING AND
WITNESSED THAT HEARING, IT WAS
HOURS OF TESTIMONY AGAINST
LIFTING THIS BAN.
COMING FROM ALL VARIETY OF
SECTORS.
WHETHER IT WAS INDIVIDUALS IN
THAT COMMUNITY THEMSELVES,
SOCIAL WORKERS, TREVOR PROJECT,
NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, MENTAL
HEALTH AMERICA OF WISCONSIN, ALL
COMING OUT TO SAY NOT ONLY THAT
THIS PRACTICE IS HARMFUL, BUT
WHAT THE COMMISSION -- WHAT THAT
COMMITTEE DID WAS ALSO SAY THAT
IN CREATING THIS ETHICAL
BOUNDARY, THE SOCIAL WORKER
ASSOCIATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS OVERSTEPPED THEIR
BOUNDS, AND REALLY THE COMMITTEE
WAS COUNTERING THEIR ARGUMENT
SAYING THIS WAS A CAPRICIOUS AND
ARBITRARY USE OF THAT RULEMAKING
AUTHORITY, AND THAT IS WHY THE
COMMITTEE SAID WE ARE GOING TO
REMOVE THAT RULE.
SO THEY DIDN'T -- THE COMMITTEE,
DURING THAT HEARING, EXPRESSLY
SAID SEVERAL TIMES, WE'RE NOT
HERE TO TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR
NOT CONVERSION THERAPY IS GOOD
OR BAD, DESPITE ALL THE
EVIDENCE, OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE
SHOWING THAT IT'S HARMFUL.
OUR STATEMENT REALLY WAS, WE
DON'T -- YOU'RE RIGHT, WE DON'T
NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE
IT IS A HARMFUL PRACTICE.
BUT THESE SOCIAL WORKERS AND
THOSE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE AND THE
EXPERTISE TO STATE, THIS IS AN
UNETHICAL PRACTICE, AND IF YOU
ARE GOING TO ENGAGE IN THIS
PRACTICE, YOU ARE GOING TO BE
ACTING OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF
YOUR PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
>> WELL, WE APPRECIATE HEARING
FROM YOU, BRIAN MICHEL.
THANKS VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME JOIN
YOU.
TAKE CARE.
>> THE WISCONSIN ASSEMBLY
THURSDAY GAVE FINAL PASSAGE TO
SENDING A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT TO VOTERS IN APRIL.
A MEASURE THAT WOULD MAKE IT
HARDER FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS TO
GET OUT OF JAIL ON BAIL.
IT WOULD REQUIRE A JUDGE TO
CONSIDER A DEFENDANT'S POTENTIAL
RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY, INCLUDING
THEIR CRIMINAL HISTORY.
CURRENTLY CASH BAIL IS SET ONLY
TO ENSURE THAT THE PERSON
APPEARS IN COURT.
"THE NEW YORK TIMES" CALLS THE
RACE FOR WISCONSIN'S HIGH COURT
ARGUABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT
ELECTION IN AMERICA IN 2023.
TWO CONSERVATIVES AND TWO
LIBERALS FACE OFF IN A PRIMARY
FEBRUARY 21, AND 2 WILL MOVE ON
TO THE GENERAL ELECTION APRIL 4.
THE WINNER WILL DETERMINE THE
IDEOLOGICAL BALANCE OF THE COURT
GOING FORWARD.
"HERE AND NOW" SENIOR POLITICAL
REPORTER ZAC SCHULTZ BRINGS US
IN DEPTH INTERVIEWS WITH EACH
CANDIDATE OVER THE NEXT MONTH.
FIRST UP, 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.
>> CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATISM
IS THAT COMMITMENT TO THE
ORIGINAL PUBLIC MEANING OF THAT
DOCUMENT AND FAITHFULLY
FOLLOWING THAT IN EVERY SINGLE
CASE THAT WE DECIDE.
>> DOES THAT EVER RUN INTO
CHALLENGES WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE
SPECIFIC LEGISLATION TO FOLLOW,
YOU DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC
HISTORY OF COURT DECISIONS TO
FOLLOW, AND YOU KIND OF HAVE TO
BREAK NEW GROUND AS THE COURT IS
SOMETIMES REQUIRED TO DO.
>> YEAH, SO WHAT WE DO WHEN
WE'RE BREAKING NEW GROUND, WHEN
WE SAY THAT, WE'RE TAKING PRINCE
PPRINCIPLES THAT ALREADY EXIST,
TEXTS THAT ALREADY EXISTS,
WHETHER IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION
OR IN THE STATUTES, AND WE'RE
APPLYING TO NEW SITUATIONS.
SO IN THAT SENSE, IT MIGHT BE
BREAKING NEW GROUND.
BUT WE NEVER BREAK NEW GROUND IN
LAW.
SO WE KNOW FROM LOOKING AT THE
CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 4 OF OUR
WISCONSIN CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT
THE LEGISLATIVE POWER IS LOANED
TO THE ASSEMBLY AND THE SENATE.
AND, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T SAY
THE SENATE ASSEMBLY, AND ALSO
WHEN DAN KELLY THINKS HE'S GOT A
GREAT IDEA FOR NEW LAW, RIGHT?
IT'S ONLY THE LEGISLATURE THAT
GETS TO MAKE OUR LAW.
SO EVEN IN NOVEL CIRCUMSTANCES,
WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO GO BACK TO
THE TEXT OF THE LAW, WHETHER
IT'S THE STATUTE OR IT'S THE
CONSTITUTION, AND WE'RE GOING TO
APPLY THAT MEANING TO RESOLVE
THE CASE.
BUT IF WE EVER GET IN A POSITION
OF IMPORTING OUR PERSONAL
PREFERENCES OR OUR PERSONAL
POLITICS, THAT'S POISON TO THE
WORK OF THE COURT.
THAT DESTROYS THE CONSTITUTION
KNOLL ORDER, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S
SO IMPORTANT TO SET THAT ASIDE,
SET ASIDE ALL THOSE PERSONAL
PREFERENCES AND POLICIES, AND
JUST DECIDE CASES BASED ON THE
LAW.
>> YOU MENTIONED THE POISON AT
THE FORUM LAST WEEK, AND YOU
TALKED ABOUT IN REFERENCE TO
SOME OF THE COMMENTS YOU HEARD
SOME OF YOUR OPPONENTS MAKING.
WHEN YOU HEAR SOME OF THOSE
PUBLIC COMMENTS, HOW MUCH OF
THAT COMES ACROSS AS VIRTUE
SIGNALING TO AN AUDIENCE, TO
VOTERS, AS OPPOSED TO HOW
SOMEONE MAY APPLY THE LAW FROM
THE BENCH?
>> YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S
CONCEIVABLE THAT CERTAIN
CANDIDATES MIGHT USE THAT AS
VIRTUE SIGNALING, AND THEN
OTHERS WOULD USE IT, JUST AS
THIS IS HOW I'M GOING TO DECIDE
CASES.
HERE'S THE PROBLEM WITH BOTH OF
THEM.
SO IF YOU ARE -- IF YOU THINK AS
A CANDIDATE THAT YOU SHOULD BE
VIRTUE SIGNALING TO ATTRACT THE
VOTES OF A CERTAIN BODY OF
WISCONSINITES, WHAT YOU'RE
TELLING THEM IS THAT YOU ARE
NOT -- YOU ARE NOT COMMITTED TO
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER, AND
YOU'RE TELLING THEM THAT THE
POLITICS SHOULD HAVE A ROLE IN
THE COURT, EVEN IF YOU DON'T
INTEND TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON
THAT, WHAT YOU'RE TELLING THE
VOTERS IS THAT IT SHOULD HAVE A
ROLE, AND I THINK THAT'S
EXTRAORDINARILY PROBLEMATIC,
BECAUSE WHEN PEOPLE COME IN TO
THIS ROOM SO THAT THE COURT CAN
HEAR THEIR CASE, WHAT PEOPLE OF
WISCONSIN WANT TO KNOW, WITH
ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, IS THAT
EVERYONE ON THAT BENCH IS GOING
TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
THEY DON'T COME IN HERE AND SAY,
YOU KNOW, TO ONE OF THE
JUSTICES, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT
YOUR VALUES ARE.
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK
THE LAW OUGHT TO BE.
THEY DON'T SAY THAT.
THEY SAY FOLLOW THE LAW.
AND THAT IS THE COMMITMENT THAT
WE ARE TO MAKE, NOT ONLY IN
FACT, BUT IN APPEARANCE, TOO.
>> HOW DO VOTERS DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN THAT WHICH -- THEY WOULD
PROBABLY LARGELY AGREE WITH, AND
WHO YOU WERE APPOINTED BY, WHO
CAMPAIGNS ON YOUR BEHALF, WHEN
YOU APPEAR AT A CAMPAIGN RALLY
AND YOUR PERSONAL -- ON YOUR
PERSONAL BEHALF AS OPPOSED TO
REPRESENTING THE COURT, HOW CAN
THE PUBLIC DRAW THE DISTINCTIONS
BETWEEN THAT AND WHAT THEY MAY
SEE ON THEIR SCREENS?
>> YEAH, SO I THINK THE BEST WAY
THAT PEOPLE CAN GET A SENSE,
BECAUSE I TALK TO PEOPLE IN A
VARIETY OF SETTINGS, AND THERE'S
HARDLY ANYONE THAT I WON'T TALK
TO.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, CUBS FANS.
I WON'T TALK TO THEM.
EVERYBODY ELSE, I'LL TALK TO.
SO THAT MIGHT OCCUR IN A
POLITICAL CONTEXT.
IT MIGHT OCCUR IN A COMMUNITY
CONTEXT.
IT MIGHT OCCUR IN A COMMUNITY OF
FAITH.
IT COULD OCCUR IN A WHOLE
VARIETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT
THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT ARE
COMMITTED TO TALKING TO PEOPLE
FROM A BROAD ARRAY OF
BACKGROUNDS, AND SO I'M
COMMITTED TO THAT.
NOW, THE WAY THAT THEY BECOME
CONFIDENT THAT I SET ASIDE MY
POLITICS AND MY PREFERENCES IS
BY READING MY WORDS.
SO I WROTE EVERY SINGLE OPINION
WHEN I WAS ON THE COURT.
I WROTE IT WITH AN UNDERSTANDING
THAT THE AUTHORITY I WAS USING
WAS BORROWED FROM THE PEOPLE,
AND THAT EACH OPINION I WROTE
WAS REALLY A REPORT TO THEM ON
HOW I USED THEIR BORROWED
AUTHORITY.
AND SO I WROTE IT IN EACH OF
THOSE OPINIONS IN A WAY THAT
IT'S ACCESSIBLE TO ANYONE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A LAWYER TO
READ AND UNDERSTAND THE OPINIONS
THAT I WROTE, AND I THINK THAT
WAS IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF THIS
VERY QUESTION, BECAUSE THEY NEED
TO BE CONFIDENT THAT THE MEMBERS
OF THE COURT, THAT THEY'VE
LOANED THEIR AUTHORITY TO, ARE
JUST DECIDING THE CASES BASED ON
THE LAW.
>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PEOPLE
TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE NEXT
COURT WILL ADDRESS, THERE ARE A
LOT OF PEOPLE FRAMING THIS
ELECTION AROUND A REDISTRICTING
COURT COMING BACK, OR A
REDISTRICTING SUIT COMING BACK,
OR THE ABORTION 1849 LAW COMING
TO THIS COURT.
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE IDEA
THAT SOME PEOPLE WILL BE GOING
TO VOTE BASED ON WHETHER THEY
WANT TO SEE CERTAIN OUTCOMES IN
CERTAIN DECISIONS AND THAT'S HOW
THEY'RE GOING TO CHOOSE THEIR
JUSTICE?
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE REALLY
UNFORTUNATE.
IF I COULD ENCOURAGE OUR FELLOW
WISCONSINITES JUST ONE THING IN
THIS RACE, IS TO MAKE A DECISION
ON WHO YOU BELIEVE WILL BE THE
MOST FAITHFUL TO THE LAW.
NOT TO THE -- NOT TO THE RESULTS
THAT YOU WANT, BUT TO THE LAW.
AND JUST IF I COULD JUST ADDRESS
THIS AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, JUST
FOR A MOMENT, THERE MIGHT BE AN
ISSUE OR TWO ISSUES THAT YOU'RE
REALLY PASSIONATE ABOUT, AND YOU
REALLY WANT TO COME OUT A
PARTICULAR WAY.
AND SO YOU SAY, I'M GOING TO GO
AND FIND A JUSTICE WHO WILL
PROMISE ME THAT HE'LL VOTE OR
SHE'LL VOTE IN THIS PARTICULAR
WAY ON THIS ISSUE.
I THINK THAT'S A DANGEROUS PLACE
TO GO, BECAUSE IF YOU FIND A
CANDIDATE WHO WILL PROMISE YOU
THAT THEY WILL VOTE IN A
PARTICULAR WAY ON YOUR FAVORED
ISSUE, THAT KIND OF JUSTICE IS
ALSO GOING TO BE TAKING POLITICS
INTO ACCOUNT IN VOTING ON EVERY
OTHER ISSUE.
BECAUSE JUDICIAL ACTIVISM VERSUS
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATISM,
IT'S AN ALL OR NOTHING THING.
YOU EITHER BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN
BRING YOUR POLITICS INTO THE
COURT AND MAKE DECISIONS BASED
ON THAT, OR YOU DON'T.
>> IT'S FASCINATING YOU
MENTIONED THE LOOKING TO THE
COURTS TO SOLVE A POLITICAL
PROBLEM, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT
OF PEOPLE WHO WILL SAY THAT'S
JUST WHAT THE DOBBS DECISION WAS
WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT,
THAT THAT WAS CONSERVATIVES
LOOKING TO A CONSERVATIVE COURT
TO SOLVE A POLITICAL ISSUE.
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF THE
DOBBS DECISION?
>> SO I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK
DIRECTLY TO IT.
YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE OF ABORTION
IS VERY LIKELY TO COME TO COURT,
TO THIS COURT.
I UNDERSTAND THERE'S ALREADY A
LAWSUIT THAT CHALLENGES AN EARLY
VERSION OF THE STATUTE, AND
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THE CLAIM
THERE -- IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE
I'VE LOOKED AT THE PLEADINGS,
YOU NEVER KNOW, MIGHT HAVE BEEN
AMENDED, BUT WHEN I ORIGINALLY
LOOKED AT THEM, THERE WAS NO
CLAIM OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.
THEY SIMPLY SAID THAT THERE WAS
A SUBSEQUENT STATUTE THAT
OVERRULES THE PRIOR STATUTE, AND
SO REALLY THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ELEMENT OR THE QUESTION IS NOT
COMING TO THE COURT ANY TIME
SOON, ALTHOUGH THAT IS CERTAINLY
A POSSIBILITY DOWN THE ROAD.
SO THEY OPENED UP THE
POSSIBILITY FOR THIS TO BE
ADDRESSED AT THE STATE LEVEL,
AND THAT'S ALL THEY DID.
>> HOW MUCH IS THIS RACE CHANGED
VERSUS THE 2020 RACE IN TERMS OF
NATIONAL ATTENTION, STATE
ATTENTION, PEOPLE'S AWARENESS OF
WHAT THE COURT MEANS IN THEIR
LIVES?
>> I THINK IT HAS GOTTEN A
HIGHER PROFILE, AND THAT IN AND
OF ITSELF, I FIND SOMEWHAT
REGRETTABLE.
WHEN THE COURT GETS A HIGHER
PROFILE, WHAT THAT SUGGESTS TO
ME IS THAT THERE ARE FORCES THAT
ARE TRYING TO ELEVATE ITS
POSITION IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ORDER TO BE IN A POSITION THAT
IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF WHAT
I HEAR IS THAT THERE ARE ISSUE
ADVOCACY GROUPS THAT ARE GOING
TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY IN THIS
RACE BECAUSE THEY WANT, FRANKLY,
ONE OF MY -- ONE OF MY
OPPONENTS, MAYBE TWO OF MY
OPPONENTS WHO ARE TALKING ABOUT
THEIR VALUES AND WHAT THEY'RE
GOING TO BRING TO THE COURT AS
RULES OF DECISION.
AND THESE INTEREST GROUPS ARE
LATCHING ON TO THAT AND SAYING,
YES, THAT'S WHAT WE WANT.
WE WANT SOMEONE ON THE BENCH
WHO'S GOING TO BRING THESE
PARTICULAR POLITICS TO THE WORK
OF THE COURT TO IMPORT THAT
POISON INTO THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS.
WE WANT THAT.
AND WHAT I'VE HEARD IS THERE'S
GOING TO BE A LOT OF MONEY THAT
IS GOING TO COME IN TO SUPPORT
THAT.
>> NEXT WEEK ON THIS PROGRAM,
ZAC SITS DOWN WITH LIBERAL
CANDIDATE JUDGE JANET
PROTASIEWICZ AS PART OF HIS
SERIES OF INTERVIEWS WITH THE
FOUR CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.
FOR MORE ON THIS AND OTHER
ISSUES FACING WISCONSIN, VISIT
OUR WEBSITE AT PBSWISCONSIN.ORG,
AND THEN CLICK ON THE NEWS TAB.
THAT'S OUR PROGRAM FOR TONIGHT.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
HAVE A GOOD WEEKEND.
>> FUNDING FOR "HERE AND NOW" IS
PROVIDED BY THE FOCUS FUND FOR
JOURNALISM AND FRIENDS OF PBS