The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original
production. >> Another government
shutdown averted for now after immigration
enforcement tactics leave communities reeling and
demanding change. [MUSIC]
I'm Frederica Freyberg tonight on "Here& Now".
Congresswoman Gwen Moore on DHS funding and
accountability for Ice agents.
[MUSIC] one of the candidates for
Wisconsin Supreme Court and a report on how small
communities are pushing back against big data
centers. It's "Here& Now" for February 6th.
[MUSIC] >> Funding for "Here& Now"
is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and
Friends of PBS Wisconsin. >> Democrats could block
funding for Homeland Security when it expires
next Friday, unless there are, in their words,
dramatic changes to how immigration operations are
conducted. This comes in the aftermath of the deaths
of two protesters in the midst of the enforcement
surge in Minneapolis. In Wisconsin, all six
Republican members of Congress voted this week
for the stopgap two week spending plan. Both
Democratic House members in Wisconsin voted against,
including U.S. Representative Gwen Moore
of Milwaukee. She joins us now from Washington. And
thanks very much for being here.
>> Oh, thanks for having me, Fredricka. Always good to
be with you. >> So why did you vote no.
On the stopgap spending for Homeland Security?
>> Well, Frederica, I was being very consistent. I
voted against the bill when it passed the House and
went on to the Senate. The Senate, then Senate Dems
managed to create a negotiation where they
split the bills. Theoretically, five bills
to pass as is, and the Homeland security bill to
have a two week stopgap. When it came back to the
House, I truly expected it to have an opportunity to
vote on separately on the other five bills in
Homeland Security. But I had exactly one vote, and I
decided to stick with my initial vote because of the
egregious way that these, you know, you know, rogue
forces were operating. And of course, as you mentioned,
they killed two people. And, and and further, they've
jailed children, American citizens, destroyed
property and just terrorized our communities.
And I just couldn't in good conscience, knowing that I
had an opportunity to to to vote and stick a pin in
this to, to to not do so. >> What specifically are
you and others seeking around these accountability
measures for agents that are part of these
enforcement activities? >> Well, thanks for asking
for me. Really common sense things. Anything that any
American would expect, how they would want to be
treated as a citizen or not. First of all, targeted
enforcement have probable cause to stop someone, not
stop someone because they are speaking Spanish or
because they look like a Somali, or they look brown,
or God forbid that they be a protester that's exerting
exerting their First Amendment rights, and they
get arrested for that, have a probable cause. We want
them to have no masks. I mean, this is horrifying.
You know, Frederica, would any of us tolerate masked
people not in uniform, but just dark clothes and
hoodies to come up and and and kidnap us require some
identification. What? What's wrong with a badge
and a badge number? We want state and local oversight
and coordination in these arrests. Police in
Wisconsin have the right to prosecute Ice officers if
they are using unreasonable force. We want body cameras
being used to record what's happening, not to track
people, but to record what's happening. And
certainly no paramilitary police. We want people
trained as in regular law enforcement duties and
standards, and we want them to have a judicial warrant
in order to be able to arrest them, not an
administrative warrant, not something that, you know,
Kim Bondy has drawn up, but a warrant, a warrant signed
by a judge. >> In in terms of judicial
warrants instead of administrative warrants.
I've heard some Republicans say that the requirement of
having judges sign off would cause gridlock in the
system and dramatically slow this process. What
about that? >> We wouldn't have a snag
in the system if, in fact, they were going after the
people they said they were going after. Got God bless
every Ice agent that finds a rapists and murderers and
folks like that who have have breached our borders.
But to just round people up and to have a quota so that
if they see you and I together, they decide to
round us up so they can get their quota that day, none
of that. They they are creating the gridlock with
these aggressive paramilitary activities.
>> What are your expectations for quick
agreement around these measures that you call for?
>> These are not extraordinary things. I
mean, these are common sense things. I mean, some
of the worst criminals in the history of this country
have not been confronted by agents with masks on and
hoodies. They have been arrested, given they're
told what their rights are and and they're being
reassured that they're being arrested by people
who have the authority to do it, and they've been
arrested because there was probable cause that they,
in fact, were the people that they were seeking, not
just some. They were not five year old kids being
scooped up in order to manipulate their parents
into presenting themselves to be arrested. This is
common. This is how hard could it be to come to some
agreement around common sense, a common sense
agenda? Just regular order. How about regular policing?
That's what we're asking for.
>> I wanted to get your take on the president
calling to federalize elections. Do you think
Wisconsin, and especially Milwaukee could be a target
of that? >> Well, just let me say
the Constitution, which the president seems to readily
and often infrequently ignore, says that states
shall run the elections. So this is yet another
unconstitutional thing that President Trump and his
sycophants want to do. I am so happy that Fulton County,
Georgia, is suing the president over the seizure,
the FBI seizure of their records. And I'm sad to
think that the Justice Department, that they are
appealing to are a bunch of, you know, Trump cronies.
But at some point, I hope that the Supreme Court will
uphold the 10th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, which
Republicans have often relied upon for their
segregation purposes. But the 10th Amendment clearly
talks about a couple of things, like our right, for
example, to have authority, resting powers and
authorities in our jurisdictions, as well as
securing our voting operations.
>> On another note, you've also been calling for the
Wisconsin Supreme Court to act on congressional
redistricting. But resolution isn't at all
likely ahead of the midterms, is it?
>> Oh, absolutely. I would I am calling on the jurists
to look at this before our midterm elections with all
haste, as we see the president trying to steal
the 2026 election. You know, here we are in a state
that's 50, 50 Democrat, Republican. Everybody knows
that this is the this is the purplest of the purple
states. That's why we saw all the candidates
congregating here during the election because this
was high on this, this this is a prize to either side.
And yet in Congress you got poor men. Park Pocan
holding it down for the Democrats. And there is a 6
to 2. Majority for Republicans. And you know
what? In a 5050 state. 6 to 2, the math just ain't math.
And Frederica. >> All right, Congresswoman
Gwen Moore, we leave it there. Thanks very much.
>> Thank you. >> We'll hear from a
Republican congressional member on these matters
next week on this program. In the race for a seat on
the Wisconsin Supreme Court. We are two months away from
Election Day. The seat is currently held by
Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley, but she
decided not to run again. Liberals currently hold a 4
to 3 majority, so the winner of this race will
not change the balance of the court. The conservative
candidate is appellate Court judge Maria Lazar,
and the Liberal candidate is appellate Court Judge
Chris Taylor. Here and now, senior political reporter
Zac Schultz sat down with each of the candidates
tonight. We hear from Maria Lazar.
>> Well, Judge Lazar, thanks for coming in today.
>> Thank you for having me. >> So let's start with your
judicial philosophy. How would you describe it and
how does it guide you from the bench?
>> I describe my philosophy as originalism with a slice
of textualism, which means for those who are not law
nerds like me, which means that I look at the
documents and the laws as they're written, and I
interpret them from that point of view. And if you
have to go a little bit outside, I do, but I don't
go all the way outside to intent of legislators and
things like that. >> So obviously this race
is now an open seat because Justice Bradley decided not
to run again. What was what was your first thoughts
when she announced she was not going to do that?
>> Well, it was it was a surprise. My thoughts were
that I looked at the last election, and I thought
that it was so politicized for the people in the state
of Wisconsin that I thought they actually could use a
judge or a justice like me, who's someone who is calm,
judicial, has the experience and will not
legislate from the bench. >> Has she given you any
guidance? Have you reached out to her about what it's
like to run for Supreme Court?
of the past justices. I've talked to anyone who will
talk to me, and actually more people talk to me than
you would think. to be needed to win this
race? >> I'm not positive on that.
I know it will not be anywhere close to last year.
>> So in what way? How is this different from, I
guess, the last two races when control of the court
was up for grabs? >> Well, that's one thing.
I think what I meant by not being anywhere close, I
think the numbers were bigger because it would
have changed the composition of the court.
This time we're talking about a position that is
going to be most likely in the minority, but someone
who will stand up to be a strong voice for the common
sense people of my home state.
fundraising totals came out, and you raised about
200,000, your opponent close to 2 million. Some
people raised their eyebrows at that. But you
got into this race after her and you're trying to, I
guess, fight your way into kind of an oxygen starved
environment when it comes to fundraising. So what's
it been like for you? >> Well, that's true. So I
started on October 1st. So I think the numbers
actually are relatively good for starting that late.
Also since January, which was the cutoff date January
1st, we've had a big groundswell of support from
people who've recognized and actually heard about
this race and realize there is no primary, and they've
looked at it and they've said, this is a race and a
candidate they're interested in supporting.
>> So when you look at the last two elections, has
that impacted morale for the number of people paying
attention to this race, or perhaps for for people
getting behind your your campaign and seeing, well,
the last two conservative candidates lost in rather
large fashion. >> I don't I don't know if
it's impacted morale. What I will say is this, I think
that the state of Running and for what reason?
And when I look at this race. The reason I am
running is because I want to be someone on that court
who represents the law for the state of Wisconsin. I
want to be someone who is their voice, bringing
diversity of thought and and judicial backgrounds
and experience to that court. I don't look at
those past races as anything indicative of
what's going to happen. In fact, I'm kind of hoping
that there's going to be a line in the sand drawn now
where we can look forward and say, who's the better
judicial candidate, who has more experience? And I
think in this race, it's pretty clear that that's my
candidacy. >> When when you compare
the records of the two candidates here, you're
both circuit court judges. You've both now in the
appellate court. So how do you explain to the public
that the difference in your background.
>> Well, numbers, numbers are the reason. So I spent
20 years in private practice. I spent five
years at the Department of Justice representing the
state of Wisconsin. But I spent seven years in the
circuit court in every branch criminal, civil,
juvenile, mental commitments. My opponent
spent two years in criminal. I've spent four years in
the Court of Appeals, published many written
opinions. My opponent has spent two. I think when you
add up the numbers, it's pretty clear who has the
judicial and legal experience.
>> Obviously, there's a pretty high profile race
for governor also kicking off right now when we talk
about that oxygen starvation of people paying
attention, how do you cut through to let people know,
hey, this race is really important?
>> Well, you're right. So my race is April, April 7th
and all the other races are in November. I think since
I've been on the Circuit court and the Court of
Appeals, I have continually gone to my 12 counties and
anywhere else, including Milwaukee, to talk to
people, to talk to high school kids, college kids
about the courts, about why it's so important. And I do
that all the time. So I think this is just a
continuation of telling people why this race is so
important. It's in April because it's nonpartisan
and it's in April because that's how Wisconsin
legislature has determined it to be.
>> We've seen in the past couple of races, candidates
talk more about their own personal values versus
issues. And that's that's a change compared to races in
prior decades. How are you talking about your values
versus issues, and what does that mean to the
public when they're hear maybe more, more clues
to what you actually feel or how you might rule, even
though that's obviously not what you're supposed to be
talking about. things that are really
important. So how I might rule is never an issue. And
no judge, no justice, no candidate should ever say
that. But we've looked at the rules and we've looked
at the ethical rules, and we've determined that it's
possible to tell the state of Wisconsin more
information about where I stand, what I stand up for,
and what issues I believe are important and how I
view the law, how I interpret the law, what my
philosophies are. So on my website, you can go there.
Judge Maria Lazar com, you can go there. And it has my
positions on important issues that are set there,
written in Black and white so people can see it, can
see what I stand for. I don't say how I will rule
on a case, but I say what I believe is important.
>> Is that frustrating when you when you speak to
people that are potentially voters who they want to
hear more, they want to hear you talk like a
politician because they they think of these races
more political as opposed to an independent judicial
race. >> They do. And in some,
some respects, I'll go places where there will be
politicians speaking. And it's always that
interesting dichotomy between the calm demeanor
of a judge versus the politician who's yelling at
the room and screaming at everybody. But I think
that's what people want. They want their judges not
to be someone who's yelling with their hair on fire in
the room. They want someone they think they would like
to have adjudicate their cases. So when I go and
talk to people, I explain to them that I can't tell
them how I'll rule on case A versus B, but I do tell
them, here's how I rule, here's how I respect people
in my court, here's what I think of victims rights,
those sort of things. I think that gets across to
people. They recognize that there are certain limits
and that we're bound by those limits, or we should
be. precedent, you've mentioned
a couple of times that if you win, you would be in
the minority. But that's not a forever thing. As
we've seen, the court can change what is the standard
when it comes to overruling precedent. Well.
>> So people have to understand that its
precedent means that you don't. Just because the
court changes composition, you don't necessarily go
back and then revisit things you've just done.
Precedent is that you respect, you give stereo
decisis. Its a credit, and it's a benefit to cases
that have been done. And you give them time to maybe
air to be to be looked at. When courts have overturned
precedent, the US Supreme Court in general, it's
something that's maybe 20, 30 years down the road.
It's not something that they just do willy nilly as
as Scalia would say, it's something that you have to
have seen that it doesn't work. You can't just say,
I'm now the member of the majority. So everything
that was done, I get to undo. That's not how courts
work. We need to restore the respect and integrity
in those courts and have them move forward and not
always be looking back to things that they want to
change. >> And finally, will you
seek Donald Trump's endorsement? We saw Brad
Schimel go out and ask for that towards the end of his
campaign. endorsements of anyone
who's out of the state of Wisconsin. If someone looks
at my campaign and they agree with my vision, my
idea that we need to restore justice and
integrity to the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, I
would welcome the discussion. But I'm not
seeking anything. >> All right. Judge Lazar,
thanks for your time. >> Thank you very much. It
was a pleasure. >> A large scale data
center in the village of DeForest was rejected this
week. It's an example of the push pull between local
communities and tech companies, with their ever
increasing demands to store and process huge amounts of
data, especially in the age of artificial intelligence.
As Steven Potter reports, opposition from DeForest
residents left the village board with a difficult
decision to announce. >> Some of you might feel
very victorious tonight. Others are feeling a great
loss. >> When residents in the
DeForest area first heard that a large scale data
center was being planned for farmland just outside
their village. They were not happy about it.
>> I picked this spot 40 years ago to live because
it was so remote. I never thought we'd be faced with
something like this. >> Nancy Roth was one of
the residents who opposed the sprawling 1600 acre and
$12 billion development proposed by technology
company data centers. They worried that the data
center may damage natural resources and tear apart
the tranquility of their rural landscape.
>> We want to live in a farming community, not next
to a concrete walled data center.
>> So Roth and others went to work. They organized
residents printed yard signs, created an online
community, and voiced their opposition at numerous town
and village board meetings. And just this week, after
months of expressing their outrage.
>> We're at a point where we can finally make a vote.
>> Those opposed to the DeForest Data Center were
able to claim victory when the village board voted
unanimously against the data center plan.
>> Yes, to reject AQ. >> With that rejection of
the proposal from the village of DeForest has now
formally withdrawn from the project. This kind of
conflict, which hinges on the local control of land
and resources, has been repeating itself around the
state. Here's what happens. A large scale data center
gets proposed. Residents get upset and voice their
opposition. And then local officials take notice of
the outrage and put an end to the project. Or the data
center company itself decides to pull out. Other
proposed data centers that have been nixed recently
include one in Brown County and another in Racine
County, and the city councils of both Menominee
and Madison have passed restrictions on data
centers being built there. >> The data center industry,
especially at this scale, it's new, right? And any
time there's something of this magnitude that's new,
it's scary. >> Tricia Braun is with the
Wisconsin Data Center Coalition, which advocates
for these developments to boost the state's economy.
She says that our ever growing need for more
information, more entertainment and more
innovation, including and especially with the use of
artificial intelligence, is what's driving demand.
>> Whether you're on your phone, your live streaming
TV, your manufacturer that's automating your
processes, your regular company that just decides
to move its server offline or to the cloud, all of
that needs to be stored somewhere. That's where
data centers come in. >> Some large scale data
centers house only one company, which is the case
for the Beaver Dam Data Center being built right
now by meta and the Microsoft Data Center,
under construction in Mount Pleasant. But Braun says
smaller and midsize companies are clients, too.
>> Whether it's insurance companies, financial
institutions, just general businesses can be some of
these tenants when it comes to something that is
changing this fast. And as you know, we're all doing
more with technology every day. The demand is
increasing. >> According to research
from the Brookings Institute, there are more
than 5000 data centers operating in the United
States. That's ten times more than any other country.
There are around 50 data centers here in Wisconsin,
at least for now. But if technology companies get
their way, there may be several more of them here
soon. And some of them will be the hyperscale sized
data centers that span hundreds of acres and cost
billions of dollars. Data center companies find
Wisconsin appealing because of available land, energy,
and a favorable, particularly cooler climate.
Currently, data centers are being proposed in Rock
County, Ozaukee County, Wood County, and Kenosha
County, and although Qt's withdrew its bid for
DeForest, the company says they may explore other
locations in Wisconsin. >> I think digital
infrastructure is critical to our economy and critical
to national security, and it has to get built
somewhere. >> State lawmakers are also
getting involved in data center regulation.
>> We need to be competitive in this space.
>> Mark Born, a Republican in the state assembly,
represents Beaver Dam, where social media company
meta is building a $1 billion, 700 zero zero zero
square foot data center. >> This is the future. And
why shouldn't Wisconsin communities benefit from
some of the economic development that comes from
that? >> While he is in favor of
these developments, Bourne also wants to make sure
that data centers don't lead to higher electrical
bills for local residents and that the state's water
supply is protected. He's a lead author of legislation
that aims to regulate data centers.
>> Ratepayers should be protected. We should be
protecting our natural resources.
>> Democratic State Representative Angela
Stroud of Ashland, says the Republican bill doesn't go
far enough. She wants to see more rules around
renewable energy fees and labor. And if data center
developers don't meet those requirements.
not be well suited for the state. And I think we
should be willing to admit that and say, fine, then
we're not the place for you. But if we can achieve those
things, which we can with smart regulation, we need
to get something done. >> Regulation is a sticky
topic for data center proponents.
very careful about what is put into place as far as
rules, restrictions, regulations to make sure
that those unintended consequences aren't an
overall detriment to future development.
>> While the future of data centers in Wisconsin
remains a case by case situation, proponents say
the need for more and more computing power and data
storage is undeniable. But for now, it remains an
exercise in compromise between data center
developers, local residents, municipal government and
state lawmakers. Reporting from DeForest. I'm Steven
Potter for "Here& Now". >> For more on this and
other issues facing Wisconsin, visit our
website at PBS Wisconsin and then click on the news
tab. That's our program for tonight I'm Frederica
Freyberg. Have a good weekend.
.
>> Funding for "Here& Now" is provided by the Focus
Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.