>> THE FIELD FOR THE UPCOMING
SUPREME COURT ELECTION HAS BEEN
NARROWED DOWN TO TWO CANDIDATES,
AND THEY ARE A STUDY IN
CONTRASTS.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCES
IS HOW THEY VIEW PAST DECISIONS
BY THE COURT.
OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS,
"HERE AND NOW" POLITICAL
REPORTER ZAC SCHULTZ WILL TAKE
US THROUGH SOME OF THE MOST
SIGNIFICANT CASES OF THE PAST
FEW YEARS AND SHOW US WHETHER
THESE CANDIDATES AGREED WITH THE
DECISIONS.
TONIGHT, WE LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF
REDISTRICTING.
>> ON APRIL 4th, VOTERS WILL
CHOOSE BETWEEN JANET
PROTASIEWICZ AND DANIEL KELLY
AND DETERMINE THE FUTURE
IDEOLOGICAL BALANCE OF THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.
BUT THAT SAME ELECTION WILL
DETERMINE WHETHER THE COURT WILL
LOOK BACKWARDS AS WELL.
>> SO THAT'S WHEN I SAY, YES,
THOSE MAPS ARE RIGGED.
>> PROTASIEWICZ HAS MADE CLEAR
SHE BELIEVES WISCONSIN'S
LEGISLATIVE MAPS ARE
GERRYMANDERED IN FAVOR OF
REPUBLICANS AND SAID THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT ERRED
TWICE ON ITS PATH TO APPROVING
THOSE MAPS.
THE FIRST ERROR CAME IN 2021
WHEN COURT'S CONSERVATIVE
MAJORITY ANNOUNCED THEY WOULD
NOT DRAW NEW LEGISLATIVE
BOUNDARIES BUT WOULD INSTEAD
CHOOSE FROM MAPS SUBMITTED BY
GOVERNOR TONY EVERS AND THE
REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE.
THE BEST MAP, ACCORDING TO THE
COURT, WAS ONE THAT KEPT THE NEW
BOUNDARIES AS CLOSE TO THE
CURRENT BOUNDARIES AS POSSIBLE
SO IS TO HAVE THE FEWEST NUMBER
OF VOTERS SWITCH LEGISLATIVE
DISTRICTS.
IT WAS CALLED THE LEAST CHANGED
METHODOLOGY, A NEW PRECEDENT
INVENTED BY THE COURT.
>> THERE'S NO LEGAL PRECEDENT.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
THERE'S NOTHING IN CASE LAW.
YOU GET THIS LEAST CHANGE RULE
THAT, QUITE FRANKLY, IF YOU TALK
TO AN UNEDUCATED VOTER ABOUT IT,
THEY MIGHT SAY, "YOU KNOW, IT
SOUNDS LIKE IT KIND OF MAKES
SENSE, KIND OF ON ITS FACE MAKES
SENSE, KEEPING THE DISTRICTS
TOGETHER."
>> HOWEVER, LEAST CHANGE ONLY
EXPECTED IN THE ADVANTAGE
REPUBLICANS DREW FOR THEMSELVES
10 YEARS AGO.
EVEN THE LEAST CHANGE MAP
SUBMITTED BY GOVERNOR EVERS
STILL CREATED DISTRICTS THAT
ENSURED REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IN
THE LEGISLATURE.
>> THIS IS WHERE I SAY DEMOCRACY
IS ON THE LINE.
YOU LOOK AT THE FACT THAT THE
MAPS WERE, YOU KNOW, 10 YEARS
AGO, A PROBLEM.
I WOULD SAY THAT THE MAPS ARE A
BIGGER PROBLEM.
YOU'LL HEAR PEOPLE ARGUE THAT
THE REPUBLICANS USED VERY, VERY
SOPHISTICATED COMPUTER
TECHNOLOGY TO DRAW THOSE MAPS
AND TO DRAW THOSE MAPS IN A WAY
THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY THE MOST
FAVORABLE TO THEM, SO THAT'S
WHEN I SAY, YES, THOSE MAPS ARE
RIGGED.
>> DANIEL KELLY SERVED ON THE
COURT FROM 2016 UNTIL HE LOST
RE-ELECTION IN 2020 AND WAS NOT
ON THE BENCH WHEN THE COURT
DECIDED THE REDISTRICTING CASE.
HOWEVER, HE SAYS THEIR DECISION
MAKES SENSE.
>> AND SO THE PHRASE, LEAST
CHANGE, IS MEANT TO ENCOMPASS
THE IDEA THAT WE TAKE THE MAPS
AS THEY'RE WRITTEN AND THEN WE
LOOK FOR THE LEGAL ERRORS AND WE
FIX THE LEGAL ERRORS AND WE
LEAVE EVERYTHING ELSE THE SAME.
>> PAST REDISTRICTING CASES WERE
DECIDED IN FEDERAL COURT BUT
REPUBLICANS WANTED THIS CASE
BEFORE THE WISCONSIN SUPREME
COURT.
KELLY SAYS THE IDEA OF FAIRNESS
IN THE MAPS IS A POLITICAL
QUESTION, SOMETHING THE COURT
MUST AVOID.
>> THE MEMBERS OF THIS COURT
HAVE NOT BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH
MAKING POLITICAL DECISIONS, ONLY
LEGAL DECISIONS.
AND SO THEIR JOB IS JUST TO
ADDRESS THOSE LEGAL
IMPERFECTIONS IN THAT MAP, AND
WHEN THEY'RE DONE ADDRESSING
THOSE, IT IS TO STEP ASIDE AND
THEN WAIT FOR THE PEOPLE OF
WISCONSIN TO WORK ON THEIR
LEGISLATURE AND THEIR GOVERNOR
TO GET TO A MAP THAT IS
POLITICALLY ACCEPTABLE TO THE
STATE.
>> IN THE SPRING OF 2022, USING
THE LEAST CHANGE CRITERIA,
JUSTICE BRIAN HAGEDORN JOINS THE
THREE LIBERALS ON THE COURT TO
CHOOSE TONE TO THE EAS TO TONYH
INCLUDED AN ADDITIONAL ASSEMBLY
SEAT IN THE MILWAUKEE AREA,
SOMETHING THEY ARGUED WAS
REQUIRED UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS
ACT.
REPUBLICANS APPEALED TO THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
WHICH STRUCK DOWN THE MAPS,
SAYING THERE WASN'T ENOUGH
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT INVOKING THE
V.R.A.
HAGEDORN DISWHROIND THE
CONSERVATIVES IN PICKING THE
REPUBLICAN DRAWN MAPS WHICH
PROTASIEWICZ SAYS WAS THE
COURT'S SECOND MAJOR ERROR AND
SOMETHING SHE EXPECTS THE COURT
TO REVISIT IF SHE WINS.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS IN
THE DISSENT FROM THE SUPREME
COURT REGARDING REDISTRICTING
CASE, ESPECIALLY AFTER IT CAME
BACK FROM THE SUPREME COURT, WAS
THEY FELT THAT THE COURT COULD
HOLD A TRIAL TO ACTUALLY
DETERMINE WHETHER IT WAS
WARRANTED TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS
ACT IN MILWAUKEE OR NOT.
IS THAT AN ISSUE YOU WOULD
EXPECT TO COME BACK BEFORE THE
COURT GIVEN THAT THE DISSENT
ALMOST ENVISIONED IT?
>> I WOULD THINK SO.
I WOULD THINK SO.
>> REPORTING FROM MADISON, I'M