>> The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original
production. >> For the first time in
Wisconsin, measles has been detected in wastewater
surveillance, serving as an early warning sign of
potential community spread, and immigration enforcement
continues to divide public opinion and Congress.
[MUSIC] I'm Frederica Freyberg.
Tonight on "Here& Now" Republican Congressman
Scott Fitzgerald on immigration funding and
elections. An interview with Wisconsin Supreme
Court candidate Chris Taylor and Eric Ayisi
reports on the top issues in the 2026 state of the
tribes address. It's "Here& Now" for February 13th.
[MUSIC] >> Funding for Here and Now
is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and
Friends of PBS Wisconsin. >> The ICE surge is ending
in Minnesota. White House borders are Tom Homan
announcing the move as U.S. Senate Democrats vote to
block funding for homeland security over demands for
stricter rules of engagement for immigration
agents. Also this week, the House passes new election
rules aimed at preventing noncitizens from voting.
Tonight, we're joined by Republican U.S.
Representative Scott Fitzgerald from Wisconsin's
fifth congressional district. And Congressman,
thanks very much for being here.
>> Good to be with you. >> So a busy week, as
always in Washington. What's your reaction to the
immigration enforcement surge ending in Minnesota?
>> I mean, I think the president handled it very
well. Tom Homan has become a figure that, quite
honestly, is very well trusted by both sides of
the aisle. If you go back even to the Obama
administration, the president had a
relationship with Tom Homan. And and ever since then, he
has been obviously a figure that's high profile. But I
think what the president did there made a lot of
sense. De-escalate, bring down the temperature. Let's
let's figure out how to do a better job of this. And
so far it's it seemed to have worked well.
>> So how would you grade the overall operation
making mention here? Of course. Of the two U.S.
citizens killed by agents in the midst of it?
>> Yeah, both obviously very unfortunate incidents.
I think it did show that the idea that if you were
going to go into any community in the United
States and you were going to receive resistance from
local law enforcement, or if there was going to be
kind of this this situation where Ice was not really
operating under the idea that they were going to be
able to go in and apprehend people using some type of
detain order, then what you would end up with is this
back and forth in the streets. And and certainly
that wasn't productive. So, you know, unfortunately the
border was open for four years under the Biden
administration. And one of the things that President
Trump ran on was that he was going to apprehend
those that had criminal records and and deport them.
And, you know, but how that was going to be
accomplished is as varied from state to state.
>> Do you feel as though law enforcement should be
better at de-escalating a special, especially after
seeing what happened in Minnesota?
>> Well, I think we're in uncharted waters, right? I
mean, this is not something that the average law
enforcement agency has really dealt with in the
past. If if there was not such a high number of
illegals and those with criminal records, it's very
easy for them to simply go to any county jail where
they've already been apprehended. And there
would just be a turnover to to Ice. And other than in
some sanctuary cities, that is the way it's always
happened. Now there's a much higher number of
illegals in the states right now than we've ever
seen before. But, you know, that process has always
served us well, but we find ourselves in in a different
position right now. >> Meanwhile, the stopgap
funding for Homeland Security expires at
midnight. What's your response to Democrats
demands for new rules for Ice and other agents,
including not wearing masks and requiring the use of
judicial warrants? >> Yeah, I mean, I think if
you look at the laundry list of things that Senator
Chuck Schumer had rolled out from the Senate, it was
kind of dead on arrival in the House. So there would
have had to have been some other type of negotiation.
And and it appears that the white House did kind of
make a run at it, that they were trying to pull
together a list that might have been acceptable, but
the ten or so items that that the Senate had laid
out was not going to happen. So we find ourselves in a
unbelievable situation. I think, of the Democrats
kind of holding this up again, and a very small
government shutdown related to homeland security, which
makes no sense because Ice is funded. It was funded in
the one big beautiful bill. There's still excess
dollars there. Homeland security says they can
operate for months with with Ice being able to
still accomplish their jobs. But yet you're shutting
down things like the Secret Service and you're shutting
down TSA at the airports, and you're shutting down
the Coast Guard operations. So there's all these other
provisions and parts of of Homeland Security that are
going to be left unfunded. And, and they all run out
of money at different times. So it's this really is the
the most political move we've seen so far, I think
from, from the Senate Democrats.
>> Would you like to see a surge of immigration
enforcement in Wisconsin? >> I've been asked that
question specifically about like the city of Milwaukee.
I don't I don't think it's been necessary. I know some
people disagree with that, but we just don't see the
numbers that we've seen kind of in some of these
other areas. But I know Madison is a sanctuary city
there. There doesn't seem to be the level of of
certainly, I guess, animosity between local
levels of government and, and Ice being able to do
their job. So it just doesn't appear to me that,
that we would be at the top of the list where where
maybe those Ice agents may, may end up. So it's it's
kind of, I guess a wait and see, but but doesn't,
doesn't appear to be the a good a good thing for
Wisconsin and I think maybe not necessary for Ice.
>> On elections legislation ahead of the midterms. New
requirements would require proof of citizenship to
register and vote. Now, Democrats, of course, say
this is voter suppression and solution in search of a
problem, because non-citizen voting is a
small number. What about that?
>> I mean, I've been through this as majority
leader of the Wisconsin State Senate. I've now been
through it through numerous bills in the House of
Representatives. Listen, at the end of the day, 85% of
Americans think that you should have to present some
form of ID when you go vote. It's bipartisan support.
The the response from the other side of the aisle has
been, I think, almost laughable in that they
continue to just pretend like that, that type of
poll number or support for voter ID doesn't exist.
>> This is. >> There's no other reason
to support it other than people are not presenting
their their IDs at the polls.
>> Congressman, this is something more than that
though, right? It's a passport or a birth
certificate to register to vote, which is a higher bar
than just a photo ID. >> Yeah, I mean, there's
there's a lot of criticism from the other side of the
aisle. I mean, you can nitpick any of these bills
by saying that you're asking for more information
other than a driver's license. But in most states,
I mean, the documents that you need to provide to get
that driver's license, unless there's a full out
kind of anybody who shows up, gets that, gets that
initial document, they fill it out and they're granted
a driver's license. It is still some form of ID and I,
and I'm not saying that, you know, the bill, the
save act, which which I think is well done and has
been crafted correctly, I, you know, I've never been a
big supporter of just federalizing these election
laws. I think it's important to keep some of
these things decentralized. So for me, somebody that
served in the state legislature for so long, I
mean, there is part of this discussion in which I'm
saying, listen, this is what American people need
to believe in the election cycle, especially in
Wisconsin, where I run into constituents all the time
that still think that the 2020 election was
manipulated by rules related to Covid. It
happens all the time. I run into people all the time
that talk to me about that. This would instill some
what I what I think some concrete evidence that
people that show up at the polls have some type of
document in their hand, some type of, of driver's
license in their hand to prove that they're a
citizen and prove that they're a wisconsinite and
they should be voting in that election.
>> Congressman Scott Fitzgerald, we leave it
there. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Good to be
with you. >> Turning to the spring
election for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the seat
opening up after Conservative Justice
Rebecca Bradley decided not to run again 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 last
week. We heard from Maria Lazar tonight, Chris Taylor.
>> Judge Taylor, thanks for your time today.
>> Thanks so much for having me. I really
appreciate it. judicial philosophy. Tell
me how you came by it and how it impacts you when
you're on the bench. >> Well, in every case, I'm
guided by the same things. I'm guided by a desire to
do justice for the people who are in front of me. I'm
guided by a obligation to apply the law as fairly and
as consistently as possible. And then I'm also obligated
to hold those who violate the law accountable,
regardless of who they are or how how powerful they
are. So those are really the three principles that
guide us. My decisions in cases.
>> So you've been in this race for a while, and
originally your opponent was going to be the
incumbent, Justice Rebecca Bradley. What was your
reaction when she decided not to run again?
>> You know, my focus really is on the people,
the state of Wisconsin, regardless of who my
opponent is. I am in this race because I care deeply
about the people in our state. They deserve a
justice and a court that is going to stand up for their
rights and protect their freedoms, and they deserve
a court that is going to make sure that the other
branches of government are held accountable, including
the federal government, when they overreach into
the independence of our state. So I'm very focused
on getting to the people, talking with the people. My
approach doesn't change based on who I'm running
against. This is a campaign about the people of the
state of Wisconsin, and I'm going to be a justice for
the people of the state of Wisconsin.
you don't see a big difference between Rebecca
Bradley and Maria Lazar your opponent.
>> Now. You know, I think they're very similar in a
lot of ways. They have very extreme positions that are
out of touch with the people. Wisconsin on
reproductive health care. My opponent, Maria Lazar,
celebrated the overturning of Roe versus Wade. She has
made comments that she would have enforced an 1849
criminal ban that would have outlawed abortion. In
almost every instance, she has made comments that she
thinks a six week abortion ban would be a good thing,
signaling to the legislature that this might
be a law that she would be okay with as a judge. So
those things indicate that she cannot be counted on to
protect rights and freedoms of Wisconsinites. And she
wants to take us backwards. I want to take the state
and the people of the state forward.
>> Given the last couple of races we've seen in
Wisconsin, how much money do you think it's going to
take to win this race? >> You know, I'm hoping not
as much as what we have seen. It has gotten
ridiculous how much money are in these races. And
when I was in the legislature, I fought
against the erosion of our campaign finance laws. The
reality is, here in Wisconsin, we have very
little laws that prevent these out-of-state
billionaires and big money special interests from
coming into this race. They're going to be coming
in to support my opponent. That is how she got elected
to the Court of Appeals. These same right wing
billionaires that we saw last April have supported
her in the past. >> The first fundraising
numbers that came out showed you with a
commanding lead in fundraising. Is there a
danger that some of your supporters may think, oh,
this race is over? >> I hope not, because this
race is not over. We are right in the thick of it. I
take nothing for granted. I worked very hard to get out
in all corners of the state, and of course my campaign
worked very hard to raise the resources that I would
need out of my, I think, 19,000 campaign
contributions, 15,000 of those are $100 or less. So
I am receiving a lot of support from the people of
the state of Wisconsin. That contrasts with my
opponent. Her average campaign donation was
$1,800, and she only had 16 donations that were $100 or
less. So she's clearly getting her support and
will continue to do so from the billionaires, from the
big corporations. I'm going to the people and asking
for their support because this race is about them.
>> Unlike the last couple of races, this one's not
going to likely determine the majority on on the
bench. Does that run the risk that this flies under
the radar for some people because they don't feel the
stakes are as high? >> I mean, I don't think so
because the majority on this court can be changed
on a dime. We have five state Supreme Court
elections coming up. And so just because there's now a
pro-democracy majority on this court by only one vote
does not lessen the importance of this court.
And when we have so many elections coming up,
there's four more state Supreme Court elections
coming up after mine. No one should take anything
for granted. This court can change very quickly, but if
I am able to get elected, there will be a
pro-democracy majority on the court until at least
2030. >> A couple of years ago,
when Janet Protasiewicz won her race, she kind of
changed the game in terms of talking as a candidate
about her values versus issues and making sure to
stay away from how she would decide. But
explaining to voters, this is what I care about. This
is what I'm passionate about. How do you approach
talking about your values or issues?
>> Well, I think it's really important that
voters see who I am and they deserve that. They are
electing me to a ten year term to the highest court
in our state. So I am very open about what my values
are. You know, I value every person's ability to
make their own personal private health care
decisions. My opponent does not. She has stated that
that is not a value that she has. I value courts
protecting people's rights and freedoms and holding
people and entities accountable when they
violate our law and violate our Constitution. My
opponent has shown that she is a rubber stamp for the
most powerful and the right wing extremists in the
decisions that she has issued. And so I think it's
really fair game for the public to know. These
things are things we value. >> How do you approach
precedent? Because we've seen as the court shifted
majorities over the last few years, a number of
cases looking at old cases that have been settled in
the past, Marklein being one of those. But in that
category, what would you do to when you approach a
precedent decision? have to look at does the
precedential case violate the Constitution? Does it
does it protect or take away people's rights? So
that is the first thing that I would look at.
Secondly, I think if it is an issue that evolves in
constitutional rights, you look at, well, has this
been in place for a long period of time such that
people have relied on these protections like Roe versus
Wade? It's a perfect example. The Dobbs case
took away rights that American women in Wisconsin
women had come to depend on over the last 50 years,
throughout the duration of my life. And so that was
very alarming that it was so flippantly done, 50
years of precedent. Again, that conflicts my opinion
about Roe versus Wade, conflicts with my opponent,
who celebrated the reversal of Roe versus Wade. So what
I look at, though, in looking at precedent, is
did this case comport with constitutional protections
or did it not? So there is appropriate cases where
precedent should be overturned. I mean, look at
Plessy versus Ferguson. Separate but equal. We all
know that is wrong. And thankfully there was a case
that overturned that type of discrimination in Brown
versus Board of Education. >> You're running for
Wisconsin Supreme Court position. But how much of
what's happening nationally and President Trump's
impact will will overshadow this race, as voters take
all that into account when they're making their
choices at the ballot box? >> Well, look, I think that
we have an incredible opportunity in this race,
the people of the state of Wisconsin, to elect a
justice who is going to stand up for their rights,
for their freedoms, who is going to hold the federal
government accountable when they overreach into the
state? And I'm going to protect the independence of
Wisconsin. We are an independent state. We have
our own constitution, our own laws, and everyone is
subject to those when they come in the state of
Wisconsin. So I will be a strong justice making sure
our people are protected and our state is protected.
>> All right, Judge Taylor, thanks for your time.
>> Thank you. I really appreciate it.
>> Ceremony and policy. At the 22nd annual state of
the tribes address at the State Capitol this week,
the address was marked as a chance to hear about
accomplishments and challenges of tribal
nations and encourage collaboration with the
state "Here& Now". And ICT reporter Erica Ayisi was
there. >> We. Minocqua Khaba. Good
morning everyone. I share with you my Anishinaabe
name woman who leaves tracks where she walks.
>> Chairwoman Nicole Boyd of the Red Cliff Band of
Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, highlighted
achievements and challenges of the state's 11 federally
recognized Native American tribes. Focusing on tribal
sovereignty and government to government partnerships.
>> We are not here simply to take. Our ancestors knew
this. They fought for this, and they left us the
teachings of reciprocity. >> Boyd asked to work
together with the state in preserving water rights on
tribal lands, referencing concerns about the Enbridge
oil pipeline through the bad River Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa Reservation.
>> Why is it wrong to expect that the feasibility
of projects of this magnitude be ecologically
sound and ensure the water will be protected?
>> She also asked for more tribal input with the
proposed bill to change the name of the Apostle Islands
National Lakeshore to National Park, which is
close to the Red Cliff reservation.
>> Were we wrong to request that there be meaningful
due diligence as part of the decision making promise.
>> Relating to Governor Tony Evers recent treaty
rights and the protection of wild rice? Executive
order. Boyd asked that Manoomin, or the wild rice,
be elevated to the state. Official.
>> Green wild rice has seen a significant decline over
the last many years, and promoting it will allow us
a platform to continue our efforts to restore and
protect this vitally important resource.
>> On economic development, Boyd touted positive gains,
noting the collaboration with the 2025 NFL Draft in
Green Bay with Oneida Nation.
>> This event brought in an astronomical $105 million
to the state of Wisconsin. >> She asked for
legislation for online sports betting wagered
through Wisconsin's tribes to be approved.
>> The state will see increased revenue through
the state gaming compacts, and consumers will have the
legal protection needed to ensure they receive fair
play. >> In health care. Boyd
mentioned an increase in wellness and treatment
centers on reservations, and that drug overdose
deaths are down. But to assist in opioid recovery
and chronic pain, calls for bipartisan support for
medical marijuana in the state.
>> For centuries, indigenous people have used
this plant medicine for various medical and
ceremonial purposes. >> Boyd also says the state
Task Force to Address missing and Murdered
Indigenous Women and Relatives needs improved
policies. That includes helping survivors heal.
>> We must invest the resources needed to prevent
violent crimes against women and children.
>> As to education, Boyd would like to see the
UW-Madison tribal tuition program expanded.
>> Including the College of Menominee Nation and Lac
Courte Oreilles. Ojibwe University would also
provide tribal members an opportunity to attend
college close to home that strongly supports their
identities. >> Sagen Lily Quale of the
Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians
says Boyd's call to make rice the official state
grain has deeper cultural connections as a living
relative for the tribal community.
>> To be able to rely on that relative as not only,
you know, medicine that connects us to place in
space, but also connects us to ancestry and tradition
is really beautiful. >> Paul Smith of the Oneida
Nation says Boyd's message to protect waterways on and
around tribal lands could bring more visitors to
northern Wisconsin. >> The national shoreline
that she wants to protect with the frog Bay National
Park, with protections on Lake Superior and the
protections around the the waters through bad River,
it's all those things are connected to tourism.
>> Bryan Wilson RFK, Jr. also of the Oneida Nation,
says Boyd's message on tribal economic
contributions to the state resonates with his 100%
indigenous owned small business.
>> And we're adding to our employees and with health
benefits and retirement programs.
>> Boyd closed the state of the tribe's address with a
message of resiliency for Wisconsin's tribal members
and partnership among state and tribal leaders.
>> This is the place our ancestors fought for and
are buried within, and we will continue to exercise
our treaty rights in perpetuity.
>> In Madison. I'm Eric Ayisi for “Here& Now” and
ICT. >> 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. [MUSIC]
>> Funding for "Here& Now" is provided by the Focus
Fund for Journalism and
Friends of PBS Wisconsin.