>> EARLY VOTING IS UNDERWAY FOR THE SPRING ELECTION IN
WISCONSIN. LOCALLY, BALLOTS WILL INCLUDE
RACES LIKE SCHOOL BOARD, COUNTY BOARD AND CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES.
THE STATEWIDE BALLOT HAS VOTERS WEIGHING IN ON THEIR PREFERENCE
FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES. IT ALSO HAS TWO QUESTIONS ASKING
VOTERS IF THEY WANT TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION.
THE FIRST QUESTION RELATES TO THE USE OF PRIVATE FUNDS IN
ELECTION ADMINISTRATION, SHALL A SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION BE
CREATED TO PROVIDE THAT PRIVATE DONATIONS AND GRANTS MAY NOT BE
APPLIED FOR, ACCEPTED, EXPENDED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE
CONDUCT OF ANY PRIMARY ELECTION OR REFERENDUM.
THE SECOND QUESTION RELATES TO ELECTION OFFICIALS.
SHALL A SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION BE CREATED TO
PROVIDE THAT ONLY ELECTION OFFICIALS DESIGNATED BY LAW MAY
PERFORM TASKS IN THE CONDUCT OF PRIMARIES, ELECTIONS AND
REFERENDUMS. BOTH QUESTIONS BEGAN AS G.O.P.
LEGISLATION BUT WERE VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR.
REPUBLICANS THEN PASSED THEM AS STATEWIDE BALLOT REFERENDUM,
ASKING VOTERS TO DECIDE DIRECTLY.
AND THESE QUESTIONS, WE TURN TO UW LAW
SCHOOL PROFESSOR, ROBERT YABLON. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
>> GOOD TO BE WITH YOU. >> THE FIRST QUESTION HEARKENS
BACK TO THE USE OF SO-CALLED "ZUCKERBUCKS," FUNDING FROM THE
OWNER OF FACEBOOK THAT WENT TO MORE THAN 200 CITIES AND
COUNTIES IN WISCONSIN TO RUN ELECTIONS DURING THE PANDEMIC, A
"YES" VOTE WOULD PROHIBIT THAT. WAS THAT PRIVATE FUNDING FOUND
TO BE ILLEGAL OR POLITICALLY BIASED?
>> SO THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO. THERE WERE SOME LEGAL CHALLENGES
RAISED BACK IN 2022 THAT FUNDING AND THEY WERE REJECTED BY BOTH
THE WISCONSIN ELECTIONS COMMISSION AND BY COURTS.
IT WAS FOUND THAT THOSE FUNDS DID NOT VIOLATE STATE LAW.
THERE WERE ALLEGATIONS MADE OF PARTISAN BIAS WITH RESPECT TO
HOW THOSE FUNDS WERE DISTRIBUTED, AND THE BULK OF
THOSE FUNDS DID GO TO THE STATE'S LARGEST CITIES, WHICH
ARE DEMOCRATIC STRONGHOLDS, PEOPLE WHO DEFEND THOSE FUNDS
WILL RESPOND AND SAY IT'S NATURAL THAT THEY HAVE THE MOST
FUNDING. PEOPLE WITH
THE GREATEST NEED IN 2020 AND OVER 100 MUNICIPALITIES DID GET
SOME OF THAT MONEY. THERE HAVE BEEN NO STUDIES THAT
INDICATED THAT ANY OF THESE FUNDS TILTED THE RESULTS OF THE
ELECTION IN WISCONSIN. >> ARE WISCONSIN ELECTIONS
UNDERFUNDED TO THE EXTENT THAT PRIVATE FUNDING IS NEEDED?
>> CHRONIC UNDERFUNDING OF ELECTIONS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. THERE ARE ELECTION OFFICIALS,
BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT AROUND THE COUNTRY WHO HAVE BEEN
ASKING FOR MORE FUNDS FOR THINGS LIKE NEW EQUIPMENT, MORE
SECURITY MEASURES AND SO ON, SO THAT'S A CONSTANT ISSUE.
2020 WAS PARTICULARLY DISTINCTIVE BECAUSE OF THE
PANDEMIC, AND ELECTION OFFICIALS IN WISCONSIN AND ELSEWHERE
REALLY FOUND THEMSELVES WITH UNIQUE DEMANDS THAT THEY FACED
AND THEY WERE OFTEN SHORT ON THE FUNDS AND PERSONNEL THAT THEY
NEEDED TO FULFILL THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THAT'S
WHERE YOU HAD THE PRIVATE INTERVENTIONS IN 2020.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE HAD A LOT OF IN THE PAST BUT
PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS SAW THAT THERE REALLY WAS THIS SHORTFALL
AND FOLKS STEPPED UP. >> SO QUESTION NUMBER TWO ON THE
BALLOT IS ASKING WHETHER TO PROHIBIT ANYONE OTHER THAN AN
ELECTION OFFICIAL DESIGNATED BY LAW FROM ELECTION
ADMINISTRATION. THIS HAS TO DO, IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING, WITH A CONSULTANT IN GREEN BAY WHO ADVISED
OFFICIALS ON HOW TO MAKE THEIR ELECTIONS RUN MORE SMOOTHLY,
AGAIN, IN 2020, DURING THE PANDEMIC.
CONSULTANTS, WHAT KIND OF ELECTION OFFICIALS
NOT DESIGNATED BY LAW, HOWEVER, HELP RUN ELECTIONS?
>> YEAH, I MEAN, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, AND THERE IS SOME
AMBIGUITY ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THIS PROVISION AND EXACTLY WHAT
IT WOULD PROHIBIT. THERE'S SOME QUESTION ABOUT
WHETHER IT WOULD EVEN PROHIBIT WHAT SOME OF THE PROPONENTS SEEM
TO WANT TO STOP, WHICH IS THE USE OF THIS SORT OF ELECTION
CONSULTANTS THAT GENERATE CONTROVERSY IN GREEN BAY IN
2020, BUT THERE ARE OFTEN PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT ELECTION OFFICIALS
THAT DO WORK THAT IS IN SOME WAY CONNECTED TO HELPING FACILITATE
AN ELECTION. THERE ARE FOLKS WHO ARE NOT
ELECTION OFFICIALS WHO WILL HELP THE POLL WORKERS SET UP THE
POLLING PLACE IN THE MORNING AND QUESTIONS MAY ARISE WHETHER THEY
CAN DO THAT. SOMETIMES A MACHINE MIGHT BREAK
DOWN AND QUESTIONS MIGHT NOW ARISE IF THIS PASSES ABOUT
WHETHER THE ELECTION OFFICIAL CAN CALL THAT OUTSIDE VENDOR AND
ASK FOR TROUBLESHOOTING ASSISTANCE, COULD THEY CALL UPON
AN EXPERT IN BALLOT DESIGN TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE FITTING
EVERYTHING ON THE PAGE IN A SENSIBLE WAY.
SO THOSE ARE THE WORRIES THAT OPPONENTS OF THIS WILL BRING UP,
THAT IT CREATES UNCERTAINTY, POSSIBLY UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES, AND IF IT IS INTERPRETED BROADLY, COULD MAKE
THE JOB OF ELECTION OFFICIALS MORE DIFFICULT.
>> MEANWHILE, WOULD AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 CHANGE EXISTING LAW?
>> THAT'S ALSO A QUESTION. WISCONSIN HAS A STATUTE RIGHT
NOW THAT SAYS ONLY ELECTION OFFICIALS MAY CONDUCT AN
ELECTION, AND IN 2020, THAT PROVISION WAS INTERPRETED
ACTUALLY NOT TO PREVENT THE USE OF EXPERT OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS,
SO IT MAY BE THAT THE AMENDMENT DOES VERY LITTLE, WRITE A NARROW
INTERPRETATION OF THE AMENDMENT WOW SAY IT'S TRACKING THE LAW
THAT WE HAVE BUT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE ARGUABLY
AMBIGUOUS TASKS, WHAT IS CONDUCT OF AN ELECTION, THAT OPENS THE
DOOR TO SOME ARGUMENTS THAT IT NEEDS TO HAVE A BROADER
INTERPRETATION. LEGAL EXPERTS THINK
OF SEEKING TO ENACT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AS
OPPOSED TO PASSING LEGISLATIVE BILLS INTO STATUTE?
>> RIGHT. WELL, SO THERE ARE A LOT OF
STATES SINCE 2020 THAT HAVE RESTRICTED PRIVATE ELECTION
FUNDING. A POLITICAL
ISSUE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. FOR THE MOST PART, THAT HAS
HAPPENED THROUGH STATUTES, NOT THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE.
AND SO SOME OF THE CRITICS OF THIS AMENDMENT SAY THIS JUST
DOESN'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A MATTER THAT NEEDS TO -- THAT YOU
NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR.
THE CONSTITUTION IS THE STATE'S FUNDAMENTAL LAW, IT SETS THE
FRAMEWORK FOR OUR GOVERNMENT, IT PROTECTS OUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
IS THIS REALLY THE SORT OF THING THAT WE NEED TO ENSHRINE INTO
THE CONSTITUTION RATHER THAN TRY TO WORK OUT THROUGH THE
POLITICAL PROCESS, IDEALLY THROUGH SOMETHING LIKE A
BIPARTISAN COMPROMISE. BIPARTISAN COMPROMISE.