>> THE FOLLOWING PROGRAM IS A
P-B-S WISCONSIN ORIGINAL
PRODUCTION.
>> I DIDN'T ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT
WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
>> THE SURPRISE ANNOUNCEMENT
FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF
WISCONSIN, THAT THEY WILL RESUME
ABORTION SERVICES.
REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS CHANGE
COURSE ON REDISTRICTING.
AND A PARTY-LINE SENATE VOTE TO
FIRE THE STATE'S TOP ELECTION
OFFICIAL.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG, TONIGHT
ON "HERE AND NOW," WE SPEAK WITH
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WISCONSIN
AS WELL AS WISCONSIN RIGHT TO
LIFE ON ABORTION SERVICES
RETURNING TO THE STATE.
THEN, BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE
NOW WANT NON-PARTISAN
REDISTRICTING, BUT THEY STILL
DISAGREE ON THE DETAILS.
WE HEAR FROM REPUBLICAN
REPRESENTATIVE TODD NOVAK AND
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR MARK
SPREITZER.
IT'S "HERE AND NOW" FOR
SEPTEMBER 15.
>> FUNDING FOR "HERE & NOW" IS
PROVIDED BY THE FOCUS FUND FOR JOURNALISM AND FRIENDS OF PBS
WISCONSIN.
>> PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF
WISCONSIN DELIVERED A BOMBSHELL
THIS WEEK, ANNOUNCING THEY WILL
RESUME ABORTION SERVICES AFTER
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT UPENDED
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN
ABORTION JUST OVER A YEAR AGO.
THE ANNOUNCEMENT COMES DESPITE
EXISTING STATE STATUTE, A LAW
PASSED IN 1849 THAT SAYS ANY
PERSON OTHER THAN THE MOTHER WHO
INTENTIONALLY DESTROYS THE LIFE
OF AN UNBORN CHILD IS GUILTY OF
A FELONY.
AN EXISTING LAWSUIT FROM THREE
PHYSICIANS CHALLENGING THE 1849
LAW IS STILL WORKING ITS WAY
THROUGH CIRCUIT COURT.
IN JULY, A MOTION TO DISMISS THE
LAWSUIT WAS REJECTED.
IN THAT RULING, DANE COUNTY
JUDGE DIANEISH LIPPER WROTE
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE
BAN IN WISCONSIN.
THE 175-YEAR OLD LAW REFERS TO
FETICIDE, NOT CONSENSUAL
ABORTION.
IT IS UNDER THIS RULING THAT
PLANNED PARENTHOOD BASES ITS
DECISION TO RESUME ABORTION
SERVICES IN MADISON AND
MILWAUKEE.
TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THIS, WE
TURN TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF
WISCONSIN PRESIDENT AND C.E.O.,
TANYA ATKINSON.
AND THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING
HERE.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME,
FREDERICA.
>> SO WHY DOES PLANNED
PARENTHOOD FEEL CONFIDENT THAT
THEY CAN PROVIDE ABORTIONS AGAIN
WITHOUT EVEN A CHANGE IN THE
LAW?
>> WELL, AS YOU POINTED OUT IN
YOUR INTRODUCTION, THE JUDGE WAS
VERY CLEAR THAT THE STATUTE THAT
WAS IN QUESTION DOES NOT APPLY
TO VOLUNTARY ABORTIONS.
WHEN THE RULE WAS OVERTURNED,
THAT WAS UNCLEAR AND PLANNED
PARENTHOOD OF WISCONSIN HAD TO
MAKE THE AGONIZING DECISION TO
SUSPEND ABORTION SERVICES, AND
AT THAT TIME, YOU KNOW, WE MADE
IT VERY CLEAR THAT WE WERE
COMMITTED TO FINDING A PATH
FORWARD TO PROVIDING THAT
ESSENTIAL CARE AGAIN.
THERE WERE TWO PATHS.
ONE IS A LEGISLATIVE PATH THAT'S
NOT AVAILABLE.
THE SECOND IS A LEGAL PATH, AND
WITH THE RULINGS IN THE DANE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, THAT LEGAL
PATH IS NOW THERE AND WE'RE
MAINTAINING OUR COMMITMENT TO
RESUME SERVICES.
>> DO YOU FEEL AS THOUGH THAT'S
A PATH OR A WINDOW AT THIS
POINT, GIVEN THAT THE CASE
CONTINUES?
>> WELL, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE
CASE HAS NOT CONCLUDED.
HOWEVER, TWICE NOW, THE JUDGE
HAS MADE IT VERY CLEAR, AND ALSO
REFERENCING A DECISION IN THE
'90s FROM THE STATE SUPREME
COURT, SO IT'S BEEN MADE VERY
CLEAR THAT THE LAW DOES NOT
APPLY TO VOLUNTARY ABORTIONS, SO
WE'VE RECEIVED THE CLARIFICATION
THAT WE NEED AND, YOU KNOW,
WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.
OF COURSE SHOULD ANYTHING HAPPEN
IN THE FUTURE, UNEXPECTED, WE'LL
ADDRESS IT AT THIS TIME.
BUT AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED,
WE'RE VERY CONFIDENT AND THE LAW
HAS BEEN CLARIFIED.
>> YOU SAID THAT THIS WAS NOT A
POLITICAL DECISION BUT A MEDICAL
ONE.
HOW SO?
>> WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'VE
RECEIVED A LOT OF QUESTIONS
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE SITUATIONS
THAT ARE HAPPENING, YOU KNOW,
WITH THE DISCUSSIONS REGARDING
THE SUPREME COURT AND THE STATE
LEGISLATURE, YOU KNOW, AND WE
RECOGNIZE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT'S HAPPENING IN THE
BACKGROUND.
OUR COMMITMENT WAS TO PROVIDE
CARE AGAIN AS SOON AS WE COULD
AND SO REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER
THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE THAT ARE
HAPPENING, YOU KNOW, IN OUR
LEGISLATURE, THIS WAS ABSOLUTELY
A HEALTHCARE DECISION AND NOT A
POLITICAL DECISION.
>> WHAT KINDS OF ABORTIONS WILL
BE PROVIDED?
>> SO WE'LL RESUME THE CARE THAT
WE WERE PROVIDING PRIOR TO THE
RULE FALLING, SO WE'LL BE
PROVIDING BOTH IN-CLINIC AND
MEDICATION ABORTIONS.
>> AND AGAIN, IF A COURT MOVES
TO BLOCK ABORTIONS, THEN YOU
WILL HAVE TO DO LIKE YOU DID
THAT DAY AND KIND OF USHER
PATIENTS WHO HAD ARRIVED ALREADY
OUT OF YOUR CLINIC?
>> YEAH.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WISCONSIN
ALWAYS FOLLOWS THE LETTER OF THE
LAW, AND AS YOU'VE POINTED OUT,
WHEN ROE FELL, WE DID HAVE
PEOPLE IN OUR WAITING ROOMS AND
WE VERY UNFORTUNATELY HAD TO LET
THEM KNOW THAT WE COULD NOT
PROVIDE THAT CARE THAT DAY AND
INSTEAD TRY TO FIND THEM ANOTHER
PLACE WHERE THEY COULD RECEIVE
THAT CARE.
SO SHOULD SOMETHING HAPPEN IN
THE FUTURE, OF COURSE, WE WILL
CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THE LETTER OF
THE LAW.
>> HOW WILL YOU REASSURE OR DO
YOU FEEL THAT YOU NEED TO
REASSURE PATIENTS THAT THEY
WON'T GET IN TROUBLE?
>> I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE WILL --
WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED THAT
QUESTION A LOT, AND CERTAINLY WE
HAVE A LOT OF EDUCATION
SERVICES, BOTH IN OUR HEALTH
CENTERS AND IN THE COMMUNITY SO
WE'LL CONTINUE TO LIFT THAT UP,
AND IT'S NOT A QUESTION THAT
WE'VE RECEIVED SINCE THE
ANNOUNCEMENT, AND IT'S ALWAYS
SOMETHING THAT WE'RE COMMITTED
TO, IS ONGOING PATIENT
EDUCATION.
>> YESTERDAY, YOUR CLINIC
STARTED SCHEDULING APPOINTMENTS
FOR MONDAY.
HAVE YOU GOTTEN A LOT OF CALLS?
>> WE HAVE.
WE HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF CALLS
AND WE HAVE APPOINTMENTS SET UP
IN BOTH MADISON AND MILWAUKEE.
>> SO WHEN YOUR CLINICS CEASED
ABORTIONS LAST YEAR, DID YOU
IMAGINE THIS IS HOW SERVICES
WOULD RESUME?
>> WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS --
THAT THE LEAV LEGISLATIVE PATH
FORWARD WAS A NARROW PATH, IF IT
WAS THERE, SO WE RECOGNIZED THAT
THE LEGAL PATH FORWARD WAS
SOMETHING WE REALLY NEEDED TO
ATTEND TO, SO I THINK THAT, YOU
KNOW, HOW EXACTLY, YOU KNOW, THE
WORDS AND THE TRAJECTORY AND,
YOU KNOW, WE OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T
KNOW THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
WAS GOING TO FILE A LAWSUIT, WE
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE DANE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT WAS GOING TO SAY,
SO WE DIDN'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL
ON THOSE SPECIFIC ACTIONS.
WE DID UNDERSTAND THAT OUR BEST
COURSE FORWARD WAS A LEGAL -- A
LEGAL ONE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
WE LEAVE IT THERE.
TONYA ATKINSON OF PLANNED
PARENTHOOD OF WISCONSIN, THANKS
VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> ANTI-ABORTION ADVOCATES WHO
WERE CELEBRATING THIS TIME LAST
YEAR CALL THE NEWS DEVASTATING.
WE TURN NOW TO GRACIE SKOGMAN,
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR FOR
WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> DESCRIBE WHY YOU CALL THIS
DEVASTATING.
>> YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SEEN AND
MET MANY OF THESE CHILDREN
FIRSTHAND WHO ARE HERE TODAY
BECAUSE ROE WAS OVERTURNED AND
THIS LAW WAS IN EFFECT IN OUR
STATE HERE IN WISCONSIN.
SO WE CAN'T HELP BUT THINK OF
THESE MOTHERS AND THEIR CHILDREN
AND HOW THIS WILL IMPACT THEM.
THIS WAS A REALLY POWERFUL TIME
IN OUR STATE TO SHOW THAT WE
VALUE ALL PREBORN LIFE AND NOW
IT'S VERY, VERY DIFFERENT, WILL
BE VERY DIFFERENT ON MONDAY IN
WISCONSIN.
>> HOW SURPRISED WERE YOU BY
THIS ANNOUNCEMENT BY PLANNED
PARENTHOOD?
>> YOU KNOW, COMING BACK TO THIS
SPRING, WE KNEW THAT THE
ELECTION OF THE NEW SUPREME
COURT JUSTICE WOULD HAVE A VERY
BIG IMPACT ON THIS FIGHT TO
PROTECT LIFE, BUT I THINK WE'RE
STILL SURPRISED TO SEE THIS
PREEMPTIVE DECISION BY PLANNED
PARENTHOOD SINCE THIS MATTER IS
STILL TO BE DECIDED BY THE
COURTS.
SO THAT WAS SURPRISING TO US BUT
AT THE SAME TIME, WE KNEW THAT
THIS BATTLE WAS GOING TO RAMP UP
AFTER THE RESULTS OF THE
ELECTION.
>> DOES WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE
PLAN TO FILE ANY KIND OF LEGAL
CHANNELING AGAINST PLANNED
PARENTHOOD NOW -- CHALLENGE
AGAINST PLANNED PARENTHOOD AT
THIS POINT?
>> WE ARE LOOKING AT ALL
OPTIONS, WHETHER THAT BE LEGAL,
LEGISLATIVE, TO SEE WHAT OPTIONS
WE HAVE TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST
THIS, BUT I THINK OUR MOST
POWERFUL TOOL IS THE PREGNANCY
RESOURCE CENTERS HERE IN THE
STATE, ENSURING THAT THEY ARE
FULLY FUNDED AND ABLE TO PROVIDE
SERVICES TO WOMEN.
>> SO GIVEN THE SHIFTING PUBLIC
OPINION TO SUPPORT ABORTION, ARE
THERE ANY SITUATIONS THAT
WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE WOULD
SUPPORT LEGAL ABORTIONS?
>> SO WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN
FAVOR OF HAVING PROTECTIONS WHEN
THERE'S A MEDICAL EMERGENCY.
WE THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT
AND THAT'S BEEN CONSISTENT
THROUGH OUR HISTORY AT WISCONSIN
RIGHT TO LIFE AND REMAINS OUR
POSITION TODAY.
>> SO OUR RECENT REPORT QUOTED
DOCTORS WHO SAID ABORTION IS
HEALTHCARE AND SHOULD BE THE
DECISION OF THE PATIENT.
WHAT DO YOU SAY TO PATIENTS WHO
FEAR THAT THEIR FETUS WILL
SUFFER OR THEIR HEALTH AND LIFE
ARE AT RISK WITHOUT AN ABORTION?
>> AGAIN, IN THE CASE OF A
MEDICAL EMERGENCY, WE, YOU KNOW,
UNDERSTAND AND BELIEVE THAT
THERE SHOULD BE THAT PROTECTION
IN THE CASE OF A MEDICAL
EMERGENCY.
BUT WHEN WE THINK ABOUT
HEALTHCARE, ULTIMATELY THE GOAL
IS ALWAYS TO PROTECT LIFE, AND
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PROTECTING
THE MOST VULNERABLE LIFE IN OUR
SOCIETY, AND THAT IS THESE
UNBORN CHILDREN.
>> SO YOU SPOKE TO THIS A MOMENT
AGO.
WHAT DO YOUR ATTORNEYS SAY ABOUT
WHETHER THE DANE COUNTY JUDGE'S
ORDER THAT SAID THERE IS NO SUCH
THING AS AN ABORTION BAN IN
WISCONSIN, REPRESENTS AN ACTUAL
WINDOW OF LEGALITY FOR THE
RESUMPTION OF ABORTION
PROCEDURES IN THIS STATE?
>> WE CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT THE
ISSUE HAS YET TO BE DECIDED BY
THE COURTS.
I KNOW THAT IT'S EXPECTED THAT
THIS WILL COME BEFORE THE STATE
SUPREME COURT AND, AGAIN, WE ARE
SURPRISED BY PLANNED PARENTHOOD
TAKING THIS ACTION, WE THINK
THAT IT IS EARLY TO RESUME
SERVICES WHEN THE ISSUE IS YET
TO BE DECIDED.
>> SO IS WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE
CALLING ON JUSTICE PROTASIEWICZ
TO RECUSE FROM THE UNDERLYING
LAWSUIT OVA OVER THE 1849 ABORTN
STATUTE?
>> WE DID SEE ON HER CAMPAIGN
TRAIL THAT SHE MADE HER ISSUE,
HER OPINION ON THIS ISSUE VERY
CLEAR, AND THAT IS CERTAINLY
CONCERNING FOR ANY SITTING
JUSTICE IN THE STATE SUPREME
COURT.
>> ARE YOU ASKING HER TO STEP
ASIDE FROM THAT CASE?
>> WE'RE NOT COMMENTING ON THAT
SPECIFICALLY, BUT CERTAINLY HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT HOW SHE MADE HER
OPINIONS SO CLEAR WHILE SHE WAS
RUNNING FOR THAT OFFICE.
>> GIVEN THAT PLANNED PARENTHOOD
WILL START OFFERING ABORTION
SERVICES ON MONDAY AND THEY HAVE
ALREADY BEEN SCHEDULING THOSE
APPOINTMENTS AND HAVE BEEN
TAKING A LOT OF CALLS FROM
PEOPLE SEEKING THAT SERVICE,
WHAT WILL THAT MEAN FOR THE
PREGNANCY RESOURCE CENTERS THAT,
IN SOME CASES, ARE REALLY RIGHT
NEXTDOOR TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD
CLINICS?
HOW WILL THAT CHANGE WHAT THOSE
RESOURCE CENTERS DO NOW?
>> THE RESOURCE CENTERS THROUGH
THE PAST YEAR IN A POST-ROE
WISCONSIN, HAVE TRULY STEPPED
UP.
THEY'RE SEEING IN MANY CASES
DOUBLE THE CLIENTS, AND IT'S SO
POWERFUL TO SEE THE
RELATIONSHIPS OF TRUST THAT THEY
BUILD WITH THESE WOMEN.
THESE WOMEN ARE NOT ONLY
RECEIVING LIFE-AFFIRMING CARE,
BUT IN MANY CASES, THEY ARE
RECEIVING SAFE AND SECURE
HOUSING, THEY ARE RECEIVING
OTHER OPTIONS FOR COMPREHENSIVE
HEALTHCARE.
SO I THINK THAT ONCE THE CENTER
HAS BUILT THAT RELATIONSHIP WITH
A WOMAN, SHE'S MUCH MORE LIKELY
TO COME BACK IF SHE'S IN NEED OF
SUPPORT AND TELL HER COMMUNITY
ABOUT THOSE SERVICES.
SO I THINK THAT WE WILL CONTINUE
TO SEE THESE PREGNANCY RESOURCE
CENTERS SEE AN INCREASE IN
CLIENTS.
>> ALL RIGHT.
GRACIE SKOGMAN, THANKS VERY
MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AT THE CAPITOL THIS WEEK,
SENATE REPUBLICANS VOTED TO FIRE
WISCONSIN ELECTIONS COMMISSION
ADMINISTRATOR, MEAGAN WOLFE.
DEMOCRATS CONTEND THE LAW SAYS
WOLFE DOESN'T NEED SENATE
CONFIRMATION TO CONTINUE IN HER
ROLE AND THE VOTE SHOULDN'T HAVE
HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE
BECAUSE THE BIPARTISAN WISCONSIN
ELECTIONS COMMISSION DIDN'T HAVE
A MAJORITY OF MEMBERS SEND IT TO
THE SENATE.
SHORTLY AFTER THE VOTE TOOK
PLACE, WOLFE, WHO WAS
UNANIMOUSLY CONFIRMED BY THE
SENATE IN 2019, MADE A STATEMENT
AND DEMOCRATIC STATE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, JOSH KAUL, ANNOUNCED A
LAWSUIT.
>> DURING MY 12 YEARS WORKING AS
A NON-PARTISAN ELECTION
OFFICIAL, I'VE LEARNED THAT WHEN
POLITICIANS OR EITHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE ARE UPSET WITH ME,
IT'S USUALLY BECAUSE I WILL NOT
BEND TO POLITICAL PRESSURE.
THE SENATE'S VOTE TODAY TO
REMOVE ME IS NOT A REFERENDUM ON
THE JOB I DO BUT, RATHER, A
REACTION TO NOT ACHIEVING THE
POLITICAL OUTCOME THEY DESIRE.
>> WE HAVE ASKED THE COURT TO
ISSUE A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND
AN INJUNCTION MAKING CLEAR THAT
MEAGAN WOLFE REMAINS THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WISCONSIN
ELECTION COMMISSION.
THE SENATE WOULD NOT HAVE A
UNLESS HAD A MAJORITY VOTE IN
FAVOR OF AN APPOINTMENT.
SO THE STORY TODAY IS NOT WHAT
THE SENATE PURPORTS TO HAVE
HAPPENED; THE STORY IS THAT THE
STATE SENATE HAS BLATANTLY
IGNORED WISCONSIN LAW IN ORDER
TO PUT ITS STAMP OF APPROVAL ON
BASELESS ATTACKS ON ELECTIONS IN
WISCONSIN.
>> IN MORE BOMBSHELL NEWS, STATE
ASSEMBLY THURSDAY APPROVED AN
WIZARD OF OZ-STYLE REDISTRICTING
BILL.
THE QUICKLY FASHIONED ABOUT-FACE
FROM REPUBLICAN LEADERS WHO HAVE
LONG OPPOSED NON-PARTISAN
MAP-MAKING COMES AS THE
WISCONSIN DEMOCRATIC PARTY
ANNOUNCED A $4 MILLION AD
CAMPAIGN TO PRESSURE REPUBLICANS
TO BACK DOWN FROM TALK OF
IMPEACHING LIBERAL JUSTICE JANET
PROTASIEWICZ IF SHE DOESN'T STEP
ASIDE FROM TWO LAWSUITS OVER THE
CURRENT MAPS.
UNDER THE BILL, THE MAPS WOULD
BE DRAWN BY THE LEGISLATIVE
REFERENCE BUREAU, NON-PARTISAN
STAFF WHO WORK FOR THE
LEGISLATURE.
LEGISLATORS WOULD THEN VOTE UP
OR DOWN ON THE PLAN, AND IF
PASSED, IT WOULD THEN GO TO THE
GOVERNOR FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
REPUBLICAN STATE REPRESENTATIVE
WHO HAS LONG CHAMPIONED THE IOWA
MODEL IS HERE.
TODD NOVAK JOINS US FROM
DODGEVILLE.
THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.
>> GLAD TO BE HERE.
>> SO HOW SURPRISING WAS IT THAT
THE SPEAKER MOVED TO A
REDISTRICTING PROCESS SIMILAR TO
WHAT YOU HAD PROPOSED?
>> IT WASN'T TOO SURPRISING.
MY COLLEAGUE AND I REPRESENT THE
NEIGHBORING DISTRICT AND I HAVE
BEEN ON THIS FOR YEARS.
WE FIRST STARTED, HIM AND I,
TALKING ABOUT THIS AFTER THE
LAST ELECTION.
IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, AFTER GOING
THROUGH THE LAST COURT CASE,
EVEN BEFORE THE ELECTION, AND WE
STARTED PUSHING AND WE ACTUALLY
MET WITH THE SPEAKER BEFORE
APRIL AND HE SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU
MIGHT BE RIGHT, TALK TO YOUR
COLLEAGUES, SEE IF YOU CAN TALK
TO SOME DEMOCRATS AND WE NEED TO
REALLY PROBABLY TAKE A LOOK AT
THIS.
NOW, THIS IS BEFORE APRIL.
SO WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT
AND, YOU KNOW, I WILL SAY, IT
WAS -- TALKING TO SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES THAT HAVE BEEN
OPPOSED TO IT AND WHY WE NEED TO
DO IT, WAS NOT THE EASIEST TASK,
BUT THEY LISTENED AND THEN
FINALLY WE GOT TO A POINT, I
WOULD HAVE RATHER PUT IT OUT IN
MAY OR JUNE.
FINALLY WE GOT TO A POINT WHERE
WE HAD IT, WE HAD EVERYTHING
TOGETHER AND WE WENT WITH IT AND
SO I WILL SAY THIS, IN MY
CAREER, THIS IS ONE OF THE
HIGHLIGHTS OF MY LEGISLATIVE
CAREER.
>> DOES IT MATTER TO YOU THAT
THE ABOUT-FACE ON THE ISSUE
COMES IN THE MIDST OF
REDISTRICTING LAWSUITS AND TALKS
OF IMPEACHMENT OF JUSTICE
PROTASIEWICZ AND THIS DEMOCRATIC
AD BLITZ AGAINST THEM AND THAT
IT CAME SO QUICKLY LIKE THAT?
>> I MEAN, FROM ME LOOKING ON
THE INSIDE, TALKING TO MY
DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES OVER THE
SUMMER, AND OUR WORKING GROUP, I
KNOW THE OPTICS LOOK BAD BUT, I
MEAN, I'M USUALLY CONSIDERED ONE
OF THE PRETTY TRUSTWORTHY GUY IN
THE LEGISLATURE BY BOTH PARTIES,
AND MY WORD'S GOLD, AND WE
DIDN'T JUST THROW THIS OUT IN
TWO OR THREE DAYS.
I KNOW THE OP SIX LOOK BAD, BUT
WE'VE BEEN WORKING VERY HARD ON
THIS FOR MONTHS, AND AS FAR AS
IMPEACHMENT ISSUE, WE HAVE NOT
EVEN TALKED ABOUT IMPEACHMENT.
I AM ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE
BEING TARGETED BY THIS -- ALL
THIS MONEY, THE DEMOCRAT MONEY,
AND, YOU KNOW, I REALLY DON'T
CARE ABOUT IT.
I DON'T TIE THE TWO TOGETHER.
I KNOW THE MEDIA AND THE
DEMOCRATS, BUT IN MY MIND,
THAT'S NOT WHY I DID THIS.
LOOK AT MY RECORD.
I'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR 10 YEARS.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE LAWSUITS?
I MEAN, DID THAT...
>> I HAVE NO -- I'M NOT --
THAT'S NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH
ME.
I DON'T EVEN, YOU KNOW --
THAT'S -- I'VE -- I'M SO USED
TO -- YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK BACK --
WE'VE BEEN IN THE COURTS FOR TWO
YEARS ON REDISTRICTING, TWO,
THREE YEARS.
THIS IS KIND OF WHAT GOT MY
COLLEAGUES THERE.
THE COURT COULD ESSENTIALLY FLIP
IN TWO YEARS AND THEN WE COULD
BE BACK DOING THIS.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WANTS TO
DO MAPS EVERY TWO YEARS, AND NOW
WE HAVE A SYSTEM IN PLACE WHERE
IT'S OUT OF OUR HANDS.
>> HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO
DEMOCRATIC CRITICS OF THE BILL,
INCLUDING THE GOVERNOR, WHO
CALLS IT BOGUS?
>> THE SAME GOVERNOR WHO STOOD
AT THE SENATE CHAMBER PODIUM
DEMANDING WE DO THIS IN THE
STATE OF THE STATE BUDGET
ADDRESS, PUT THIS IN HIS BUDGET,
I BELIEVE, THESE EXACT SAME
PLANS, AND NOW HE'S SAYING IT'S
BOGUS.
I THINK YESTERDAY WAS VERY
TELLING TO ME.
WE HAVE ALL THE DEMOCRAT CAUCUS
ON RECORD, VARIOUS STATEMENTS
SUPPORTING THIS EXACT SAME
THING, AND NOW THEY WERE JUST
YESTERDAY, JUST TOTALLY FLIPPED.
AND, OH, NO -- I WON'T SAY ALL
OF THEM, SECRETLY, BEHIND THE
SCENES, SOME SAID WE REALLY WANT
THIS BUT OUR LEADERSHIP --
>> I WANT TO GET THIS QUESTION
IN.
WHAT ABOUT THE QUESTION THAT
EARLIER PROPOSALS FOR
NON-PARTISAN MAP-MAKING WOULD
REQUIRE APPROVAL OF AT LEAST
THREE-QUARTERS OF ALL MEMBERS
ELECTED IN EACH HOUSE, WHEREAS
THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT REQUIRE
THAT?
>> NOW, WE CHANGED THAT TO
BIPARTISAN, AND IT HAS TO BE A
BIPARTISAN VOTE.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE -- WE PUT
SIX AMENDMENTS ON LAST NIGHT
WITH THE REQUEST OF SOME OF OUR
DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES.
IT'S CHANGED TO BIPARTISAN.
AND THE REASON IS SIMPLY 75%,
YOU COULD HAVE 10 DEMOCRATS
LET'S SAY AND 10 REPUBLICANS
THAT SELFISHLY SAY, I DON'T LIKE
WHAT YOU DID TO MY DISTRICT, I'M
NOT VOTING FOR IT.
75% THRESHOLD ISN'T JUST GETTING
ANOTHER SIDE ON BOARD, IT'S
GETTING -- IT WOULD JUST BE
ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GET IN A
CERTAIN SITUATION.
I DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN.
IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN IOWA.
IT'S NOT IN THE IOWA MODEL.
SO ONLY CHANGES THIS BILL FROM
IOWA IS WHAT LEGISLATIVE
REFERENCE BUREAU SAID WE HAD TO
CHANGE TO MATCH OUR
CONSTITUTION.
>> ALL RIGHT.
REPRESENTATIVE NOVAK, WE NEED TO
LEAVE IT THERE.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
I'M GLAD TO TALK TO YOU.
HAVE A GOOD DAY.
>> ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
AISLE, DEMOCRATIC SENATOR MARK
SPREITZER CALLS IT DISINGENUOUS
FOR REPUBLICANS TO OPPOSE THE
PLAN AFTER YEARS OF FIGHTING
NON-PARTISAN REDISTRICTING.
HE JOINS US FROM BELOIT.
SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> SO IS IT NOT DISINGENUOUS FOR
DEMOCRATS TO NOW OPPOSE THIS
AFTER CALLING FOR NON-PARTISAN
REDISTRICTING OVER THE YEARS
YOURSELVES?
>> NO.
WE STILL SUPPORT NON-PARTISAN
REDISTRICTING.
IN FACT, NON-PARTISAN
REDISTRICTING WAS THE VERY FIRST
BILL THAT I AUTHORED AS A STATE
REPRESENTATIVE IN 2015 AND I
STILL SUPPORT IT, BUT THERE'S
SOME CRITICAL DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN WHAT YOU SUPPORTED AND
THE BILL THAT ROBIN VOS IS
PROPOSING AND ALSO THE BILL WAS
NEVER INTENDED TO FIX AN
UNDERLYING REPUBLICAN
GERRYMANDER.
IT WAS FOR THE REDRAW OF MAPS
AFTER THE CENSUS AND THE BILL
FIRE MARSHINFRONT OF US DOESN'TG
TO GET RID OF THE CURRENT
GERRYMANDER THAT WE'RE STUCK
WITH.
IF THERE WAS A STALEMATE, WE
WOULD DEFAULT TO THE MAP WE HAVE
NOW.
AFTER THE CENSUS, YOU GO TO
COURT BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO REDRAW
THE MAPS.
RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A GERRYMANDER
WE HAVE TO GET RID OF AND THIS
BILL DOESN'T DO THAT.
>> WOULD YOU BE AT ALL IN FAVOR
OF ANY BILL THAT WOULD BE COMING
OUT OF THE ASSEMBLY RIGHT NOW
THAT DEALT WITH SOME OF THESE
ISSUES AS THIS BILL DOES?
>> I DON'T THINK THIS IS A
SERIOUS EFFORT BY REPUBLICANS.
I DON'T THINK ROBIN VOS WOKE UP
TUESDAY MORNING AND DECIDED THAT
AFTER MORE THAN A DECADE, HE
SUDDENLY SUPPORTS GETTING RID OF
GERRYMANDERING.
I THINK THIS IS A PLOY TO TRY TO
KEEP HIS CURRENT GERRYMANDER.
BUT IF WE WERE LOOKING AT
SOMETHING SERIOUS, IT WOULD HAVE
TO START BY MAKING SURE THAT THE
CURRENT MAP CANNOT BE USED IN
ANY FUTURE ELECTIONS, THAT THE
ODD NUMBER OF SENATORS LIKE
MYSELF WOULD HAVE TO RUN ON THE
NEW MAP IN 2024 AND NOT WAIT
UNTIL 2026, AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE
SOME SORT OF GUARANTEE THAT YOU
ACTUALLY HAVE LIKE A
THREE-FOURTHS SUPERMAJORITY THAT
WOULD BE ENACTING ANY MAPS THAT
DEVIATE FROM WHAT IS PROPOSED ON
THE FIRST TWO ATTEMPTS AND
REQUIRING THE BIPARTISANSHIP,
THAT COULD BE ONE LEGISLATOR WHO
EITHER DECIDES TO SWITCH PARTIES
OR ONE DEMOCRAT WHO WANTS TO
DEFECT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO SAVE
DISTRICT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT VOTERS WANT.
VOTERS DON'T HAVE THEM VOTING
DISTRICTS AND VOTING FOR MAPS
THAT WILL BENEFIT THEM.
THEY WANT FAIR MAPS THAT ARE
NON-PARTISAN AND THAT SEARCH ART
DRAWN BY POLITICIANS, AND THIS
DOESN'T GIVE US THAT.
>> DO YOU THINK IF THE
THREE-QUARTERS APPROVAL OF
MEMBERS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
PASS THEM?
>> YOU NEED THE THREE-QUARTERS,
BUT AS I SAID, YOU'D VO NEED A
GUARANTEE THAT THE CURRENT MAP
BE THROWN OUT AND THAT THE
ENTIRE SENATE WOULD HAVE TO RUN
NEXT YEAR, AND I DON'T THINK
THAT'S SOMETHING REPUBLICANS ARE
GOING TO BE WILLING TO DO
BECAUSE I THINK THOUGH JUST WANT
TO QUIROGA THEIR JERRY -- THEY
WANT TO KEEP THEIR GERRYMANDERED
MAPS.
>> SO POSSIBLY A RHETORICAL
QUESTION, HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT
THE GOVERNOR WOULD SIGN THIS?
>> I DON'T THINK THE GOVERNOR
WILL SIGN THIS.
I DON'T THINK DEMOCRATS ARE
GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE I
DON'T THINK THIS IS REAL.
I THINK THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO
DISTRACT FROM ROBIN VOS'S
IMPEACHMENT THREATS AGAINST
JANET PROTASIEWICZ WHICH
ESSENTIALLY AMOUNT TO EXTORTION
BECAUSE HE'S TRYING TO INFLUENCE
HER ACTION IN A CASE THAT HE'S
ACTUALLY A PARTY TO THROUGH THE
LEGISLATURE, AND I THINK ALSO
THAT IT'S AN ATTEMPTS TO DELAY
THE LAWSUIT THAT IS ACTUALLY
SEEKING TO THROW OUT THE CURRENT
GERRYMANDER, GET FAIR MAPS IN
PLACE FOR NEXT YEAR, AND SET A
STANDARD CONSTITUTIONALLY
AGAINST PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING.
SO I HOPE THAT LAWSUIT PROCEEDS
AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
ANYTHING THAT TRIES TO DISTRACT
FROM THAT OR DELAY IT IS A
MISTAKE AND IS NOT GOING TO LEAD
TO FAIR MAPS.
>> SO SPEAKER VOS SAYS THAT HE
REMAINS CONVINCED THAT THE
REASON REPUBLICANS WIN ELECTIONS
IS NOT BECAUSE OF THE DISTRICT
MAPS, BUT BECAUSE HE SAYS THEY
HAVE A BETTER MESSAGE, BETTER
CANDIDATES AND A BETTER
ORGANIZATION.
WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?
>> THAT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE, WHEN
YOU LOOK AT WHERE GOVERNOR EVERS
WON DISTRICTS WHERE TAMMY
BALDWIN HAS WON DISTRICTS, WHERE
JANET PROTASIEWICZ HAS WON
DISTRICTS, YOU KNOW, EVEN IN
LANDSLIDES LIKE TIM A TIMMY BALH
WIN HAS WON, THAT WOULD BARELY
GET TO A LEGISLATIVE SEATS AND
TONY EVERS WON ABOUT THE SAME AS
DEMOCRATS DID WHILE WINNING
STATEWIDE, SO THERE'S A CLEAR
DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE
LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT MAP AND HOW
DEMOCRATS PERFORM IN STATEWIDE
ELECTIONS.
THE FACT THAT WE'VE BEEN WINNING
MOST OF THE STATEWIDE ELECTIONS
FOR YEARS NOW MEANS THAT OUR
IDEAS ARE POPULAR AND IT'S THE
LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT MAPS THAT
ARE KEEPING US FROM GETTING NEAR
A MAJORITY IN THE STATE
LEGISLATURE.
>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF REPORTS
THAT SPEAKER VOS IS SEEKING
CONSULT FROM FORMER JUSTICES ON
WHAT IT KIND OF TAKES TO IMPEACH
A JUSTICE?
>> WELL, CLEARLY, SPEAKER VOS IS
TRYING TO STACK THE DECK WITH
CONSERVATIVE FORMER JUSTICES
THAT HE THINKS WILL TELL HIM
WHAT HE WANTS TO HEAR.
WE CERTAINLY NEED TO KNOW WHO
THOSE THREE JUSTICES ARE BESIDES
DAVID PROSSER, WHO HAS SAID HE
IS PART OF THAT GROUP, AND DAVID
IS SOMEBODY WHO HAS TAKEN
REPUBLICAN DONATIONS BACK WHEN
HE WAS ON THE COURT AND BE
DIDN'T RECUSE HIMSELF.
HE'S SOMEBODY WHO DONATED TO
JANET PROTASIEWICZ'S OPPONENTS
SO CERTAINLY IF HE WERE BEING
HONEST HERE, HE WOULD SAY SHE
DOESN'T NEED TO RECUSE AND THERE
ARE NO GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT,
BUT THE FACT THAT HE JUST
SUPPORTED HER OPPONENT IN APRIL,
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO
INFLUENCE WHAT ADVICE HE GIVES
ROBIN VOS.
>> WE HAVE A HALF MINUTE LEFT.
WHAT'S YOUR OPINION ON ELECTIONS
TO FIRE SENATE FAIR MEAGAN
WOLFE.
>> IT HAS NO FORCE.
MEAGAN WOLFE IS STILL THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WISCONSIN
ELECTIONS COMMISSION AND SHE
WILL BE AS LONG AS THE
BIPARTISAN COMMISSION WANTS HER
THERE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR MARK SPREITZER, THANKS
VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> NEXT WEEK, WE BEGIN
PRESENTING STORIES FROM OUR
WISCONSIN IN BLACK AND WHITE
BROADCAST SPECIAL COMING IN
OCTOBER.
FOR A SNEAK PEEK, VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT P-B-S WISCONSIN
DOT-ORG AND THEN CLICK ON THE
NEWS TAB.
AND THAT'S OUR PROGRAM FOR
TONIGHT, I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
HAVE A GOOD WEEKEND.
(CLOSED CAPTIONING BY RIVERSIDE
CAPTIONING COMPANY)
?
FUNDING FOR "HERE & NOW" IS
PROVIDED BY THE FOCUS FUND FOR JOURNALISM AND FRIENDS OF PBS
WISCONSIN.