PBS Wisconsin Original Production.
>> A postponed Supreme Court debate doesn't
forfeit voters. Only chance to see the candidates
square off. [MUSIC]
still in session, the state legislature is not leaving
residents hanging on property tax relief.
[MUSIC] I'm Frederica Freyberg
tonight on "Here& Now" the state Supreme Court
election approaches inside Wisconsin politics. That's
the table for you to get to know the candidates. And
Zac Schultz reports on how each candidate would
respond to requests to recuse themselves on cases.
As property taxes increase while public schools vie
for more funding, communities are informing
the public how much is diverted to private schools.
And with millions of dollars now released by the
state to address PFAs, we check back with the town of
Stella to see how it could be put to use.
[MUSIC] It's "Here& Now" for March
27th. >> Funding for Here and Now
is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and
Friends of PBS Wisconsin. >> The morning before, the
only statewide debate between candidates for
Wisconsin Supreme Court this week, one of them had
to pull out. Liberal candidate Chris Taylor went
to the hospital for kidney stones, according to her
campaign. Conservative Maria Lazar wished her a
speedy recovery. Now the debate has been rescheduled
for next Thursday night, which puts it just five
days before the April 7th spring election. Meanwhile,
the latest Marquette Law School poll found voters
still don't know who they'll vote for. Among
registered voters, 53% remain undecided, with 23%
supporting Chris Taylor and 17% choosing Maria Lazar
and 7% saying they won't vote. The state Supreme
Court election is the focus of this week's new Inside
Wisconsin Politics, with Wisconsin Public Radio
reporter Shawn Johnson and Rich Kremer and PBS
Wisconsin “Here& Now” reporter Zac Schultz.
>> The Wisconsin Supreme Court race is coming up,
and polling shows a majority of you say you
don't know enough about the candidates. Let's fix that.
This is inside Wisconsin politics.
I'm Shawn Johnson here with my colleagues, Zac Schultz
and Rich Kremer. Hey, guys. >> Hello. Hey.
>> So this is not something we're just making up here.
There has been polling on this race, and the leading
vote getter in that poll was a majority of people
saying they don't know who they're going to support.
That is so different than in 2023 and 2025, when we
in Wisconsin were the Super Bowls of election for our
Supreme Court races. So, Zac, what is the difference
this year? >> Well, the simple
difference is this isn't for the majority. The
Liberals will have a four person majority for the
next session no matter what. If Chris Taylor wins, it
goes to five two. If Chris. If Maria Lazar wins, it
stays at 4 to 3. But that simply is the difference
between $100 million in campaign and the attention
of the world on this very important swing state, and
the court's decisions on election laws versus a
snooze fest, even in the state for people that
normally tune in for these elections, are still trying
to figure out, oh, when is that coming up?
>> And that's not hyperbole either. That $100 million
is a real number from last election, when we shattered
the 2023 record not just for Wisconsin, but for
national judicial races. Rich. The 2025 race was the
first one you'd covered really closely. What was a
day in the life like on that one, and how does it
compare to what you've observed in this Supreme
Court race? >> I mean, it's like night
and day. I covered a Republican, former
Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel, spent a day
with him on the campaign trail. And, you know, first
off, the bat, he took money directly from the
Republican Party of Wisconsin. Also, I was at a
campaign event at the Republican Party in La
Crosse, where Brad Schimel framed the race as a fight
between good and evil. And he also used an analogy of
driving the serpent out of the Garden of Eden. So the.
The language used by Schimel is very different
than what we've seen from Judge Lazar. She's
promoting that she is the independent candidate
compared to Chris Taylor, who she attacks as being an
activist and former Democratic lawmaker. But
she just hasn't made the same kind of statements
that I've heard that Schimel did last year.
>> It's almost like an old fashioned Supreme Court
race in Wisconsin, Zac. >> It harkens back to a day
where things weren't as heated that your your TV
wasn't filled with ads nonstop in the lead up to
it, where you really did have to pay attention to
learn who these people were. Now it's still Republican
Democrat, you know, they may use the labels
conservative, liberal, but Chris Taylor is a former
legislative Democrat but now independent judge. But
her connections to the Wisconsin Democratic Party
to the Republican Party covered go deep. I've
attended multiple events with her. She's been
speaking at GOP rallies with the next speaker's
Eric Toney running for attorney general. So it's
not like either of these are running down
independent lanes. They're still following that
traditional the new path. If you want to become on
the Supreme Court, you keep the political parties at
arm's length in your name, but you take all the money
under the table. You take all their effort for
grassroots, because that really matters when when it
comes to getting people out to vote, those turnout
operations, those dollar operations still belong to
the parties. There is no independent structure for
anyone to remain independent and actually
win a campaign. >> Zac, what should people
know about Chris Taylor's background and what led her
to this point? >> She's got heavy partizan
activity in her background and she doesn't deny that.
But like every judge or justice, she wouldn't be
former Justice Prosser served as the Assembly
speaker for Republicans. And back in the day when
they could say, well, I'm a conservative justice, not a
conservative politician with Chris Taylor in this
modern environment, I don't know if it really matters
because the candidates are so tied to the parties
anyway that her background doesn't seem to have any
baggage. And we saw with Brad Schimel Rich, as you
were talking about last year, he's a former
Republican attorney general for Wisconsin, and he did
not shy away from those Republican connections. But
you see a difference with Lazar and how she's handled
herself. >> Yes, she's she's leaning
on her, you know, her experience in the courtroom,
but also, you know, her political ads kind of let
you know where she stands on certain things, or at
least where her campaign does. So there's plenty of
signals out there. >> You know, some of these
candidates, when they run for Supreme Court, they
come from the law. And maybe you're hearing about
them for the first time or getting introduced to them
for the first time. But, you know, Chris Taylor and
Maria Lazar, as you both mentioned, have been around
for a little while. I remember Maria Lazar
defending Republican drawn legislative maps in 2012
alongside co-counsel Dan Kelly, who former Supreme
Court justice and who ran in a couple races in lost.
I remember Chris Taylor very well for her role in
the minority on the Legislature's Budget
Committee, where if you have that position, you are
expected to be able to talk and defend every position
and and attack the majority's position
aggressively. And so she did that. Well, she wasn't
just a backbencher legislator. She was the
person who was on that front line of attack. And,
you know, since we've since she's become a judge,
that's changed. And she has indicated and her friends
have indicated, look, she knows this is a different
role on the court, but it is striking a very big
change for her to go from that, you know, attack,
attack, attack Democratic legislator to a judge going
to see things differently. Rich, there was another
finding in the Marquette poll that we recently
covered that, you know, it's hard to say where
people stand on the candidates when more than
half of voters say they don't know. But what we did
see, what you saw. There's a lot of tells in there
about which side is more enthusiastic right now at
this moment in time. >> Yeah. Big time. There
was a big disparity in terms of who's excited to
vote in the April 7th election. So some numbers
I'll run off here. People saying that there are
certain to vote on April 7th. Democrats are up 18
points over Republicans. How important the election
is to the outcome or how important is the election
outcome to you? That was a 19 point spread in
Democrats favor as well. So there's all kinds of
metrics. And not to mention that President Trump had
his lowest net negative approval rating in
Marquette poll history. So those are all some
headwinds for conservative candidates.
>> For the full episode, look for Inside Wisconsin
Politics at and PBS, Wisconsin Dot, YouTube, and
wherever you get your podcasts. With more on the
statewide race. Elections for Wisconsin Supreme Court
have become more expensive and more partizan than ever
before. And while justices on the court are
technically independent, they are easily sorted into
liberal and conservative groups that can create an
appearance of bias in the eyes of some people, and
has led to an increase in the number of requests for
justices to recuse themselves from a case
"Here& Now". Senior political reporter Zac
Schultz has more. >> So that's when I say yes,
those maps are rigged. >> In 2023, Janet
Protasiewicz ushered in a new era in Wisconsin
Supreme Court elections by openly talking about her
values. While on the campaign trail, she called
legislative maps passed by Republicans and adopted by
the Supreme Court rigged. Since then, multiple
lawsuits filed against those maps have come before
the court, and each time lawyers representing the
Republicans have asked Protasiewicz to recuse
herself, resting part of their case on this very
interview she conducted with us each time she said
no, concluding the presumption of impartiality
stands. I therefore deny the motion for my recusal.
>> Recusal is important in the sense that it is part
of this big picture notion that people are entitled to
unbiased adjudicators. >> Rob Yablon is a
professor at the UW Law School. Most judicial
recusals come from a judge who's already weighed in on
a case, or who has a financial or personal
relationship with one of the parties, but that
doesn't include campaign contributions or statements
from the campaign trail. >> The expectation is that
under the current rules, that judges and justices
won't step aside because of their discussions of issues
or values on the campaign trail, or because of money
they've received. >> Under the Wisconsin
Supreme Court's own guidelines. Each justice
decides for themselves if they should recuse. We
asked the candidates in this Supreme Court election
about their recusal standards.
>> I follow the rules set by the U.S. Supreme Court
as well as by the state of Wisconsin. I've had to look
at different circumstances and decide when and how to
recuse. And I always look at not only is it
objectively, but subjectively biased. So if
there's an appearance of impropriety, then I will
take a step back. >> I'm instructed by my
ethical obligations to look at each case on a case by
case basis and make sure that I can be fair and
impartial. And that's what I do every day.
>> Two current cases have shown a new tactic in
recusal requests. Former Supreme Court Justice Mike
Gableman and lawyer Jim Troupis have each attempted
to remove enough justices through recusal to change
the makeup of the court that would hear their case
in 2020. Troupis represented the Trump
campaign as they attempted to throw out more than
200,000 votes in Dane and Milwaukee counties. In oral
arguments, he sparred with Justice Jill Karofsky.
>> And what you want is you want us to overturn this
election so that your king can stay in power. And that
is so un-American. >> Troupis lost that case,
but at the same time, he was the lawyer behind
Wisconsin's false elector scheme, an effort to send
an alternate slate of electoral votes to
Washington, DC on January 6th. For that, he's been
charged by the Wisconsin attorney general with
forgery, and Troupis claims all the judges in Dane
County are biased and should recuse. His motions
were rejected, and while appealing to the Wisconsin
Supreme Court, he asked Justices Jill Karofsky and
Rebecca Dallet to recuse based on their comments in
the Trump v Biden case. >> My investigation is just
that an investigation into the extent to which
elections in Wisconsin have been conducted in
compliance with the law. >> Meanwhile, Gableman was
hired to investigate Republican claims of fraud
during the 2020 election. His investigation found no
fraud, but it was determined he violated the
open records law repeatedly. >> And under my firm belief
that this judge has abandoned his role as a
neutral magistrate and is acting as an advocate.
>> And when in Dane County Court, he insulted the
judge and opposing counsel. A report by the Office of
Lawyer Regulation found ten violations committed by
Gableman, and he recommended he lose his law
license for three years. Final action belongs to the
Supreme Court, and Gableman has asked three different
members to recuse themselves. Justices
Protasiewicz and Karofsky said no. While Justice
Crawford did recuse not because of Gableman's
request, but because she was a Dane County judge
during his court case. >> My strong sense is that
the volume of recusal requests that we've seen
over the past year or two are more than we've ever
seen before in Wisconsin, and the nature of those
requests really tends to be quite political.
>> Yablon says. Whether the recusal requests get
justices to sit out the case or not, the request
itself is a message to the public.
>> Maybe the goal is actually to try to change
the composition of the court in a way that you
think will help you, but at the very least, it is an
attempt maybe to raise some doubts about whether we
should give credence to the legal decision that this
body is issuing. >> Reporting from Madison.
I'm Zac Schultz for "Here& Now".
>> Harkening back to the Marquette poll, when asked
which is more important, a majority of registered
voters at 58%, say they are more concerned about
property taxes, while 41% are more concerned about
funding for K-12 public schools. This is voter
sentiment as residents recoil over hikes in
property taxes that largely go to fund schools, and the
April 7th ballots will see more than 70 school
referendum questions seeking additional funding
from taxpayers. The squeeze is the result of an
increase in per pupil revenue limits, without
accompanying state funding and underfunded costs of
special education, but some districts want residents to
see what else is contributing to the cost.
Private voucher schools green Bay is the first
municipality in the state to show those costs on
residents property tax bills. Mayor Eric Genrich
was the tie breaking vote to show that line item on
the bills. And mayor, thanks very much for being
here. >> Of course. Thanks so
much for having me. >> So there's a lot to
unpack here with all of this, but what has been the
reaction in green Bay of people's property tax bills
this year? >> Well, you know, I think
we're feeling the crunch like everyone is across the
state of Wisconsin, not just with property taxes,
but just the cost of living generally. And I think
that's why we're seeing some of those answers that
you were highlighting through the Marquette Law
Poll. People are really struggling with the cost of
living these days, and property taxes are a pretty
big number, and they're really tangible and people
see those annually. And so we're certainly feeling
that feedback as well. You know what we've advocated
for both for public education, but more
specifically with municipal government funding, is more
assistance from the state of Wisconsin. We've made
some progress in that regard with some reforms
made to to the shared revenue program, but we'd
love a more diversified revenue stream with local
sales tax options being available to, to pull down
those property taxes, which are, you know, they're just
out of line when you compare the state of
Wisconsin to a lot of other states across the country.
>> I see that green Bay schools will not go to
referendum on April 7th, but is looking at a deficit
and will seek one in November. Why is this the
same all over Wisconsin? >> Well, I think you
referenced, you know, the school funding formula
really is broken in the state of Wisconsin and has
been broken for some time. Green Bay Area Public
Schools is also involved in a lawsuit that Law Forward
is bringing forward with some other school districts
across the state to essentially make that case
to our our, our courts and ultimately probably to our
state Supreme Court to say that, you know, we have a
our kids and our residents have a constitutional right
to a sound basic education in the state of Wisconsin.
And, and we don't feel as though I don't feel. And I
think a lot of people don't feel that the state is
meeting its obligation in that regard.
>> How well do these explanations resonate with
your taxpayers? >> I think people
appreciate it. You know, nobody ever really likes
paying a property tax bill, but they want to know where
those funds are going. And so when this was brought
forward to our common council, that really was
the winning argument. It's something that our public
school district has been calling for for several
years. Our previous council shot it down. This council
moved it forward and allowed us to work with the
Department of Revenue, with our county treasurer to
figure out exactly, you know, how we could place
this information on the bill. But, you know, for
green Bay area taxpayers, $14 million is going for
this purpose, just under 10 million for the City of
Green Bay proper. So that's a big number. You break it
down to the average homeowner, you know,
$300,000 home. I think that's about $270 going for
for this, this voucher program.
>> So again, I was going to back up and suggest that
what you're talking about there is the line item of
the voucher schools on on the property tax bill. And
again in your mind, why is that important to delineate?
>> Well, again, this was something that our school
district felt very strongly about for, for some time.
They brought it to our common council. And we just
felt like transparency is really the best answer here.
I think a lot of people assume public dollars are
going to public schools. When you show this to them,
it tends to to raise some questions. But even if
you're an advocate of of private voucher schools,
you know, I think this enables one to, to make
that argument, you know, the system that we have in
place is the one that voucher advocates have
asked for at the state of Wisconsin. And so if
they're not comfortable with it, you know, they
should bring forward an alternate way of funding
education in the state of Wisconsin. And and I know
that, you know, public school advocates have been
doing that for some time. And we're certainly looking
forward to seeing how that lawsuit moves forward and
how the legislature responds to this debate in
the next session. >> Meanwhile, it looks like
green Bay schools will be even worse off deficit wise
in the 2728 school year when your last referendum
money runs out. What kind of cost cutting measures
have your schools had to undergo? Do you know,
significant? >> You know, just over the
last few years, numerous schools have been closed in
the district. Now, some of that is related to
demographic change that we're seeing in cities
across the state of Wisconsin and nation are
are really seeing. But the way that that vouchers are
funded, you know, exacerbates this funding
crunch for our districts. And so even more hard
questions are going to have to be asked, not just in
this budget cycle, but as you said, in years to come
where that deficit gets even larger and worse.
>> And it's my understanding that the caps
on the voucher program come off soon, correct?
>> Yeah. I mean, that's my understanding too. You know,
obviously not a not a state policy maker these days,
but that's my recollection as well that in 26, 27, you
know, that that number actually, you know, gets
removed. So we've already seen, I think, a 900%
increase in the levy growth that that is devoted to
voucher school spending here in the district over
the last ten years. So you can, you know, if we
continue on that trajectory, it's really just not
sustainable. >> All right. Well, we will
be watching the referendum results as they come in on
April 7th and be looking toward green Bay as well.
Mayor, thanks very much. >> Thanks for having me.
>> Now that 125 million state dollars are coming to
the rescue for communities across Wisconsin, poisoned
by the forever chemicals PFAs, the question is, when
will the money come and how much will go where those
questions are front of mind. In the town of Stella,
population about 650, with some of the highest
concentrations of PFAs in the country. Town Chair
William Casey Crump is here, and thanks very much for
being here. >> Thank you for having me.
>> So what was your reaction when you learned
the funds would finally be released?
>> It was it was a relief, to be honest. It's been,
you know, two years or three years roughly, I
think, since those funds were originally talked
about. And to have the Senate and the governor
finally come to an agreement and get that
stuff signed off on and get it out is, is the first of
of many steps yet to come, I think.
>> Yeah. Because what do you know about how much
Stella will receive? >> That's the great unknown.
I talked to DNR yesterday as a matter of fact. And
and we're going to they're still trying to figure out
exactly who's going to control the money, how it's
going to be distributed. They're not even sure
themselves exactly. You know, whether it's going to
be municipalities like Stella that end up getting
some of the money or, or our residents, I should say
not not necessarily municipality or it's going
to be public water works that get the money. You
know, we've got Wausau, we've got Tomahawk and some
and Rhinelander Yvonne that have well, issues for their
township, for their towns. Whereas out here in Starks
we're individual wells. And so each homeowner is
responsible for that. And so it's very important,
hopefully, that there will be some of that money that
will go directly to those residents.
>> Because would that be priority one for the funds?
And Stella Private Wells. >> I would love to see it
become priority one. Either that or treatment systems.
The way it is right now is the DNR did have some funds
that they made available for people to have their
wells. Redrilled the problem is when those Re
drills were done, they still had PFAs in their
water, which made their water undrinkable. Some of
them came up, still had PFAs, but it was below the
level. So the second area secondary treatment on that
is to put in a water treatment system in your
home. It's, it's we don't want or I, I, I feel like
we don't want a kitchen faucet treatment. We want a
whole house treatment system. Because if you're
only getting your drinking water from your kitchen
sink, it's very hard to brush teeth. It's very hard
to, you know, take showers. It's it makes it much more
difficult. So that's why a whole house system would be
important. And those are expensive. So again, money
for that would be a blessing.
>> Why not jump right to the whole house system
instead of going through drilling new wells or
deeper wells? >> Well, I think that if
they can get clean water and they can get a, a well
that works, that's a much longer term solution. And
also it's, it's not it's not going to be any more of
a great cost on the residents. The whole home
treatments require filters. Those filters run 300 to
$500. They recommend you change those quarterly.
There's two filters. So that's $1,000 each time
they have to change the filter. So that's roughly
4000 a year. That's very, very rough on our on our
families out here. We're not a rich community. We're
not vacation homes. We're farmers. We're ranchers.
We're small, you know, we're we're blue collar
people. >> So we've reported on
this, but what is the known source of the PFAs in your
community? >> Well, it's definitely
there is a lot of information that points to
the paper mills, the sludge from the paper mills. And
I'm not sure if you know how that works. And I won't
go into great detail on that. But when they wash
the paper, all of that water gets collected. All
the stuff that comes off the paper gets collected.
And it was looked at back in the 60s and 70s as a
very, very high nutrient rich fertilizer. So they
spread it on the fields out here for years and years
and years. The property that I own, they spread it
clear back into mid 70s, I think up until probably the
time we bought the land. And so paper mill has been
a big part of that. And the paper mill here made
microwave popcorn bags. Those bags are lined, were
lined with PFAs to keep them from leaking, to keep
the butter and the oil inside it from leaking out.
And that's where the majority of the PFAs came
from when they were treating those microwave
popcorn bags. That's what we've been told. That's
what the history shows. And that, of course, is what
the DNR pointed to in their announcement of a linked
source. But the paper mill Ahlstrom, who is like the
third owner, I think since I've lived here in the last
20 years, they have stepped forward and they are
providing some drinking water to families that are
have concerns. The problem with that is it's not a
solution. >> Well, we will keep
watching the situation there and we appreciate
your time. >> You betcha. Thank you.
>> 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 and now
is provided by the fund for Journalism and Friends of
PBS Wisconsin.