DIFFERENT WAY AS THE LAST MAPS WERE BIASED.
>> THANK YOU, ZAC. ROBIN VOS SAYS HE EXPECTS THIS
CASE TO HEAD TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.
ZAC SPOKE WITH THE SPEAKER PRIOR TO THE MAP'S RULING THIS WEEK ON
A VARIETY OF ISSUES. LOOKING BACK AT THE LAST YEAR
AND WHAT'S TO COME IN 2024. >> WRAP UP 2023 FOR ME.
HOW DO YOU FEEL THE YEAR WENT FOR LEGISLATURE?
>> I THINK BY AND LARGE, THERE WERE AN AWFUL LOT OF SUCCESSES.
IF YOU GO ALL THE WAY BACK, WE HAVE SEEN SOME THINGS WHERE IT'S
OBVIOUS BECAUSE WE HAD A LOT OF COVERAGE WHERE WE HAD A GOOD
DEAL ON SHARED REVENUE. THE FIRST MAJOR INCREASE IN A
GENERATION. WE HAD A LOT O F MONDAY GO INTO
TRYING TO CREATE MORE HOUSING IN WISCONSIN. WE HAD THE STATE B
UDGET WHICH INVESTED IN EVERYTHING FROM
SCHOOLS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, HAD
GOOD INCREASES FOR OUR WORKERS WHO WORK AT THE STATE, LIKE
PRISON GUARDS. WE HAD SOME SEPARATE BILLS THAT
DIDN'T GET AS MUCH COVERAGE. ONE THAT I'M REALLY PROUD OF,
INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING FOR LITERACY, BECAUSE WE KNOW
THAT IF YOUNG PEOPLE DON'T READ AT GRADE LEVEL, THEY'RE
SIGNIFICANTLY LESS LYING TO GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL AND GO
ON TO COLLEGE. WE HAD A BILL THAT ACTUALLY
WORKED ITS WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT DEALT WITH CRIMINAL
JUSTICE. SO WE HAD A LOT OF GOOD THINGS
THAT HAPPENED THROUGHOUT WISCONSIN. WE HAD SOME THINGS
THAT WERE DISAPPOINTING THAT WE DIDN'T GET
ACROSS THE FINISH LINE. THERE WERE STILL SOME THINGS
WAITING. WE STRONGLY SUPPORTE D TO MAKE
BIRTH CONTROL AVAILABLE OVER-THE-COUNTER SO WE DON'T
HAVE A NEED FOR AS MANY ABORTIONS IN WISCONSIN.
STALLED IN THE SENATE, BUT HOPEFULLY THEY'LL GET IT ACROSS
THE FINISH LINE. WE HAD A BILL THAT DEALT WITH
PROCESSING BALLOTS ON MONDAY SO WE DONE HAVE LATE NIGHT BALLOT
DUMPS. HOPEFULLY THAT WILL PA SS IN THE
STATE SENATE. >> YOU MENTIONED ONE OF THE
SUCCESSES JUST A LITTLE BIT AGO IN THE BUDGET, THE RAISES, AND
IT TOOK UNTIL JUST THIS WEEK FOR THE UW PORTION OF THOSE RAISES
TO BE THROUGH. THEY WERE NEGOTIATED THE FIRST
TIME. DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU H AD LEVERAGE TO NEGOTIATE OVER THOSE
A SECOND TIME AND IS THAT PART OF THE LAWSUIT THAT GOVERNOR
EVERS HAS FILED TO TRY AND STOP SOME OF THE OVERSIGHT THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS? >> WELL, AGAIN, THIS IS WHERE
PEOPLE TRY TO REWRITE HISTORY. IT'S BEEN VERY COMMON THAT THE
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE DOES NOT APPROVE THE FINAL PRODUCT UNTIL
SOME TIME IN THE FALL, SO WE'RE IN THE NORMAL TIME LINE.
THAT IS A BOGUS ARGUMENT. IT'S ALSO TRUE THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS THE ABILITY TO GO THROUGH THE PLAN WHERE THEY
GIVE US A WHOLE BUNCH OF CHANGES AS TO THE WAY THEY WANT TO PAY
EMPLOYEES, WHAT INSURANCE LOOKS LIKE, WHAT HAPPENS WITH
DIFFERENT RULES FOR REGULATING THE WORKPLACE, ALL THOSE THINGS
HAPPEN, AND IT'S VERY COMMON FOR US TO DO IT.
>> BUT YOU DID SEPARATE OUT THE RAISES, THE STATE WORKER RAISES
FROM THE UW RAISES AND THEN YOU SAID I'M NOT APPROVING THOSE
UNTIL I GET MORE CHANGES. ISN'T THAT A SECOND SET OF
NEGOTIATION? >> NO.
THAT'S THE WAY THAT WE NORMALLY HAVE DONE THINGS.
AGAIN, THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WORKED THEIR WAY
THROUGH THE PROCESS. THEY WANTED AN ENGINEERING
BUILDING, THEY WANTED MORE MONEY FOR PROGRAMS.
THOSE WERE ALL THINGS THAT WERE PART OF THE PROCESS, TOO, AND
THAT'S A NORMAL WAY WE NEGOTIATE. WE TRY TO FIND A C
ONSENSUS. I GIVE PRESIDENT TO PRESIDENT
ROTHMAN AND THE CHANCELLORS. THEY NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH.
THEY DIDN'T GIVE ME SNEER AS MUCH AS I WANTED BUT WE GAVE
THEM THINGS THAT THEY WANTED. THAT'S WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS MORE
OF IS CONSENSUS AND COMPROMISE, NOT "IF I DON'T GET IT MY WAY
EXACTLY I'M GOING TO SUE," OR IF I DON'T FIND A WAY TO GET TO AN
ANSWER THAT ONLY I CAN SUPPORT, WE DO NOTHING."
>> SPEAKING OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS, HOW DO YOU INTERPRET
THOSE TWO VOTES? WHAT CHANGED FROM THE FIRST TO
THE SECOND? >> YOU'D HAVE TO ASK THEM.
INVOLVED. WE NEGOTIATED FOR MONTHS.
I KNOW THAT THE CHANCELLORS AND PRESIDENT ROTHMAN WERE IN
CONSTANT COMMUNICATION WITH THE REGENTS. I CAN'T IMAGINE THEY
CAME TO US AND SAY WE COULDN'T HAVE A DEAL
IF WE HADN'T RUN THEM BY THE REGENTS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT GOVERNOR EVERS AND HIS STAFF
WERE ACTIVELY TRYING TO KILL THE DEAL MULTIPLE TIMES.
THEY DIDN'T WANT CONSENSUS. I DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT THEY
DIDN'T WANT CONSENSUS. ULTIMATELY, EVEN THE GOVERNOR'S
OWN REGENTS IGNORED HIS WISHES AND DID THE RIGHT THING, SO I
DON'T KNOW WHY IT HAPPENED, BUT THE RIGHT THING HAPPENED AT THE
END. >> REGARDING DEI IN THE UW
SYSTEM, WHAT WILL CHANGE WITH THIS DEAL AND ARE YOU CERTAIN
THAT THIS WILL ROUTE OUT DEI AS YOU'VE REQUESTED, OR JUST GIVE
IT A NAME? >> NO.
IT'S A START. LET'S JUST TAKE ONE EXAMPLE,
ZAC, THAT'S GOTTEN AN AWFUL LOT OF -- NOT ENOUGH COVERAGE.
IN THE 1940s AND '50s, WE HAD A PROBLEM WHERE THERE WAS
PERVASIVE RACISM FOR APPLICATIONS INTO THE UNIVERSITY
SYSTEM. RIGHT? IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE
RIGHT SKIN COLOR OR PERHAPS THE RIGHT
GENDER, YOU DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO GET INTO THE UNIVERSITY.
SMART PEOPLE AT THE TIME DECIDED THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO THE
S.A.T. AND A.C.T. TESTS OVER TIME SO THAT THE BEST QUALIFIED
PEOPLE GET TO THE UNIVERSITY AND ARE ADMITTED ON THEIR GOD-GIVEN
ABILITY. THAT'S THE NORM FOR OUR SOCIETY.
IT'S RIDER THAT EVERY STUDENT TAKE THE A.C.T. TEST.
ALL OF A SUDDEN COVID COMES AND THEY COULDN'T GATHER FOR THE
TEST AND THE UNIVERSITY DECIDES WE'RE NO LONGER GOING TO USE
STANDARDIZED TESTING. WE'RE GOING TO LET PEOPLE WRITE
AN ESSAY. WELL, THAT'S WHAT THEY DID IN
THE 1940s AND '50s WHEN THEY HAD INSTITUTIONAL RACISM AND NOW
WE'RE DOING THE OPPOSITE WHERE WE'RE SAYING YOU CAN BE THE
SMARTEST KID, BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT CODE WORDS,
YOU'RE NOT ADMITTED INTO ONE OF THE UNIVERSITIES.
THAT'S AWFUL. SO WE WANT TO PUT THE A.C.T.
BACK IN. THEY SAID ABSOLUTELY NOT, SO WE
COMPROMISED AND SAID WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE TOP 5% OF STUDENTS
ADMITTANCE FROM ANY SCHOOL IN WISCONSIN, TOP 10% FOR ANYBODY
BUT MADISON. THAT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE THAT
WINS FOR EVERY PART SO THAT IF THEY HAVE SMART KIDS, YOU DON'T
HAVE TO GO TO ANOTHER STATE TO BE ACCEPTED.
THAT'S A WIN. A LOT OF THE THINGS WE DID WERE
GOOD COMMON SENSE MIDDLE GROUND FINDING WAYS TO GET TO AN ANSWER
THAT SHOW THAT DEI ISN'T ABOUT DIVERSIFYING THE CAMPUS.
THAT'S WHAT WE BELIEVE IN. WE ACTUALLY WANT MORE DIVERSITY.
I WANT PEOPLE COMING INTO THE CAMPUS NO MATTER WHAT COLOR OR
RACE YOU ARE. WHAT THEY WANT IS PEOPLE GIVING
SPECIAL PRIVILEGES BASED ON CERTAIN CATEGORIES THAT THEY
LIKE. WELL, THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE
WORLD SHOULD BE. SO DIVERSITY IS WHAT WE SUPPORT,
BUT DIVISION, SECLUSION AND INDOCTRINATION, WHICH IS WHAT
IT'S BECOME, IS WHAT WE'RE OPPOSED TO.
>> SO HOW DO YOU WIN THE P.R. BATTLE WHEN IT COMES TO PEOPLE
WHO HAS HEADLINES AND SEE REPUBLICANS ARE OPPOSED TO
THINGS THAT WILL HELP EVEN OUT THE PLAYING FIELD FOR BLACK
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN MARGINALIZED OR DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST IN THE PAST, WHEN THOSE -- >> BUT IT DOESN'T
EVEN OUT THE PLAYING FIELD.
IT GIVES PEOPLE A ESPECIALLY AVANTAGE, THAT IF IT WAS
1950s ALABAMA WE WOULD CALL RACISM.
RIGHT? IT'S THE 2020s IN WISCONSIN.
WE DON'T WANT RACISM HERE EITHER. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT IF YOU ARE THE SMARTEST, BEST, MOST
CAPABLE PERSON, MAN, WOMAN, BLACK, WHITE, HISPANIC, ASIAN,
WHO CARES? YOU SHOULD GET THE JOB.
YOU SHOULD GET THAT POSITION. YOU SHOULD BE ADVANCED.
THAT'S WHAT I THINK EVERYBODY IN WISCONSIN WANTS.
THE IDEA THAT WE'RE SOMEHOW GOING TO NOW USE A NEW FILTER OF
RACE AS A WAY TO OFF-SET THE OLD FILTER OF RACE IS WRONG.
REDLINING HAS BEEN ILLEGAL FOR 50 YEARS.
IT SHOULD BE. IT WAS HORRIFIC.
ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT WERE A PART OF OUR HISTORY SHOULD NEVER
BE FORGOTTEN BUT NEVER BE REPEATED. A LOT OF THE THING
S THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IS REPEATING THE
PROBLEMS OF THE PAST TO TRY TO FIX WHAT THEY THINK ARE STILL
THE PROBLEMS OF TODAY. SO I THINK WE HAVE A WAY TO
GENERTE A CONSENSUS, WE HAVE A WAY TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD
ON PEOPLES TALENT AND ABLE TO. YOU AND I KNOW THAT MOST OF THE
REASON PEOPLE DON'T SUCCEED IS POVERTY OF IT'S NOT RACE IN
AMERICA ANYMORE. IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE POOR.
LET'S FOCUS ON LIFTING UP PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POVERTY NO MATTER
WHAT THEIR SKIN COLOR IS AND NOT OBSESS ON PEOPLE WHO ARE WEALTHY
AND PERHAPS A MINORITY VERSUS SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT WEALTHY AND
NOT A MINORITY. SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN FIND THAT
CONSENSUS. >> MOVING ON TO TH E ANOTHER BIG
ISSUE, SUPREME COURT IS TAKING UP REDISTRICTING CASE.
THEY HAVE HAD ORAL ARGUMENTS. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE
POSSIBILITY OF -- >> IT'S NOT A POSSIBILITY.
THEY'VE ALREADY PREDETERMINED THE CASE OF EVERYBODY IN
WISCONSIN KNOWS THAT THIS IS A FARCE.
THEY'VE ALREADY DECIDED TOWN HALL MEETING DRAW NEW MAPS
BECAUSE JEANNETTE PROTASIEWICZ, BECAUSE FOR THE FIRST ITALIAN IN
THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY, PREDETERMINED CASES WHEN SHE WAS
RUNNING FOR ELECTION. THAT'S WRONG.
WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING, SO IT'S NOT A BIG
MYSTERY THAT WE DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET MAPS.
REPUBLICAS HAVE HAD THIS MAJORITY IN THE CHAMBER FOR 30
YEARS WITH TWO YEARS EXCEPTION AND THAT WAS UNDER MAPS RUN BY A
COURT, MAPS RUN BY THE LEGISLATURE, MAPS RUN BY A
FEDERAL COURT. WE'RE GOING TO WIN AGAIN IN 2024
BECAUSE WE HAVE BETTER CANDIDATES AND A BETTER MESSAGE.
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT STATS THAT PEOPLE WANT TO TALK ABOUT
IN 2018, WE HAD A DEMOCRAT SWEEP YEAR.
RIGHT? DEMOCRATS WON PRETTY MUCH
EVERYTHING, INCLUDING THE U.S. SENATE.
WE SAW ALSO TAMMY BALDWIN CARRY 14 DISTRICTS THAT WERE WON BY
SENATE REPUBLICANS. IF SHE HAD JUST HAD THE SAME
PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR HER FOR THE FEDERAL OFFICE AND THE DEMOCRATN
THE MAJORITY RIGHT NOW. BUT WE HAVE BETTER CANDIDATES
AND A BETTER MESSAGE. THEY ARE TOO FOCUSED ON BEING
DIVISIVE. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME
DYNAMIC IN 2024. AS LONG AS THEY DON'T HAVE AID
SUNNYSIDE STYLE GERRYMANDER WHERE THEY PIZZA PIED
EVERYTHING, WE'LL HAVE COMPETITIVE MAPS, REPUBLICANS
WILL WIN THE MAJORITY AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE A DIVIDED