PBS Wisconsin Original production.
>> Funding to help K-12 schools and lower property
taxes should have passed, so say 80% of Wisconsinites
polled. [MUSIC]
and gowns, what do job prospects look like under
the new domain of AI? [MUSIC]
Tonight on "Here& Now" Charles Franklin on the
huge support for the surplus bill that failed
and where the candidates for governor stand on
sharing revenue with locals. A top state economist
shares prospects for the labor market, and a look at
the lawsuit questioning how state sheriffs aid federal
immigration agents. [MUSIC]
29th. >> Funding for "Here& Now"
is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and
Friends of PBS Wisconsin. >> The deal between
Republican legislative leaders and Governor Tony
Evers to use surplus dollars to reduce property
taxes, increase school funding and give out tax
rebates, failed in colossal fashion when most Democrats
voted against it, and Republican candidate for
governor, Tom Tiffany, blasted the bill ahead of
the vote. But when asked, most people across the
state said they were for it. A new Marquette Law School
poll found 80% of Wisconsin adults say the legislature
should have passed the measure. Poll director
Charles Franklin is here with more. And thanks very
much for being here. >> Thanks for having me.
>> So have you ever conducted a poll with
across the board bipartisan results on any issue like
this? >> There are a few, but
they're really rare. And on this one, with the 80% in
favor, that was 77% of Republicans, 81% of
independents, 82% of Democrats. That is really
an incredibly narrow range across party. And it's also
the same across ideology. 78% of liberals, 78% of
conservatives and statewide, in every media market in
the state, it's in the high 70s or 80s in support of
the bill. most resonant about why
people wanted this? >> Well, I think the
fundamental thing is that it gives something that
everybody wants at least a piece of. In our other
polling this year, we've seen concern about reducing
property taxes is high with funding for special
education is a 70% in favor of that. And who doesn't
want a check for 300 or $600 to a couple? So there
are popular elements there. I think the other thing
that's less obvious is that this is a kind of old
fashioned compromise where everybody got something,
and it's all about the good things you're getting
rather than the bad things. The conflict in politics
and in the capital may have made it hard for that
compromise to carry over in the actual votes, where you
saw both some Republicans and all Democrats in the
Senate voting no. That that inability to reach a
compromise and stick to it is much easier for the
public to see this as a reasonable outcome, maybe
harder for legislators. >> So in your polling, you
referenced the potential fiscal impact, but you
surveyed people before the Legislative Fiscal Bureau
actually put a specific $2.9 billion number on a
potential projected deficit as a result of this. Do you
think if you had that specific number, it would
have changed the results? >> It might have changed it
a little bit. That report came out after we were
already in the field, so it was too late to incorporate
it. But we did ask a separate question that said,
some opponents have said this is fiscally
irresponsible. Do you think it would be better to wait
until we have a better picture of next year's
budget, or pass it now, even if that means a
potential future budget deficit? It was still 69%
saying it should be passed. Now just 21% say wait until
later. So having that information, those real
doubts about the fiscal situation did lower support
by 11 points, but it still left more than two thirds
in favor. And again, across the board, Republican,
independent and Democrats still wanted it to happen.
Now. >> Back to your results.
How surprising is it that usual party politics kind
of don't apply here? >> Yeah, it's very
surprising because so little that we see in state
politics is bipartisan this way. I think part of what's
going on is you had an odd combination of bipartisan
support for the bill. Governor Evers and
Republican leadership. But you also had bipartisan
opposition, Tom, Tiffany's opposition. Most of the
Democratic candidates either were outright
opposed or were very lukewarm about the bill.
And as we saw in the vote split, there were three
Republicans in the Senate, enough to sink the bill
without Democratic support, and all Democrats opposed.
So you had both bipartisan support and bipartisan
opposition. So what's a partizan to do when they're
sent such conflicting messages? And the result
was just almost no difference in how the
parties felt about the bill. >> Now there is the piece
about Governor Evers not working with his Democratic
caucus on this, and then they mostly vote against it.
What do you make of Evers play in this legislation?
>> I think that's a politically stunning result,
not one that most voters pay that much attention to
day in and day out, but it surfaces the fact that for
seven and a half years, Evers has really had to
deal with the Republican majorities in the
legislature. The Democratic minority could do very
little to help him, though it was vital for passing
the most recent budget, for example. But he just hasn't
been forced politically to work with the Democrats in
the legislature. But this was really surprising that
his party would desert him so completely on, you know,
the sort of capstone bill of his term as governor.
>> You asked the question in your poll whether
positions on this bill will affect the November
elections. Will it? >> 25% said it would be
very important for their fall vote. I take that with
a grain of salt. Fall is still a good ways away, but
what I think we can be certain of is that the
issues of property tax funding for schools, those
things are going to be at the center of our fall
campaigns. Even if voters have completely forgotten
about this bill, and I'm not sure that they will
forget about the bill. But how do you sell that?
You're for property tax relief. You're for school
funding. If both parties took such ambiguous stands
on on this budget bill. >> All right. Charles
Franklin, thanks very much. >> Thank you.
>> The issue of trying to hold down property taxes
while also being able to fund services pertains not
just to schools, but to things like fire
departments and EMS, like schools. Cities also pass
referendums, asking local voters permission to raise
property taxes to pay for basic services. Now, this
has become more common in recent years, as state
funding for local government continues to
fall behind the cost of inflation. In our ongoing
series looking at the biggest issues in the race
for governor "Here& Now", senior political reporter
Zac Schultz asked the candidates if they want to
see any changes to how the state shares revenue with
local government. >> In 2023. Governor Tony
Evers and legislative Republicans celebrated a
bipartisan compromise that boosted funding for local
governments by nearly 20%. But after more than a
decade of property tax freezes, local governments
around the state have still been forced to go to
referendums since then to ask the voters to raise
their own taxes to cover the increased costs of
basic services like police and fire protection. We
asked the candidates for governor if they want to
see changes to how the state shares revenue with
local governments. >> I served two terms as a
locally elected official. I think we need to make sure
that they are well funded. I think, especially on the
infrastructure side in regards to roads, because
that's oftentimes the biggest thing for local
units of government. We need to make sure that they
have good funding to be able to maintain their
infrastructure, especially roads and bridges.
>> As the county executive, 80% of our local tax levy
is going towards, you know, state mandated services.
These are services that, you know, most folks may
not actually utilize, but those most used amenities,
like our public parks, like our county zoo, like our
county transit system, these are non-mandated
services. And it really puts those particular
services that help to improve the quality of life
for individuals who live in or around or just play in
Milwaukee County. Those are always on the chopping
block. And so we actually need a better course of
action. We need a better relationship with the state
of Wisconsin for all local municipalities to be able
to fund the necessary programs and services that
their residents expect, but also rely on every day.
>> I think that the state needs to meet its
commitment to local governments and to our
public schools. You know, the promise was that the
state would cover two thirds of the cost. And we
have really very, very infrequently ever lived up
to that. Meanwhile, local property taxpayers are
asked to raise their own already too high property
taxes just to keep the lights on for our schools
and keep the snowplows on the road and police and
firefighters on the street. That's not fair. The state
is sitting on a multibillion dollar surplus
and has for years, and it's time that we reinvested
that money where taxpayers expect and deserve it to be
spent in our local communities.
>> When we have the number of referenda that are still
going on, when, you know, places like Whitewater and
Stevens Point have to go to, right, we have to go to
referendum in order to create positions for
firefighters. That system is still not working the
way it needs to work. And so, you know, I think that
no matter what we do, we need to ensure that the
relationship between local government and state
government is strong and that we're hearing what's
happening at the local level. And I think that we
have for many years, as state shared revenue was
frozen, I think we were not listening to local
government as their costs were increasing.
>> The state has been starving our local
municipalities and for over a decade now. And so it's
imperative that we have a more equitable shared
revenue formula to make sure that our local
municipalities have the resources they need. They
say when government is the government that's closest
to your door, is the government that's going to
pass policies that impact you quickest. So it's it's
it's for communities. It's necessary for our
communities to have municipalities that have
the resources to provide the services that people
need. >> We do need more
investment in local government. When I talk to
municipalities and cities all across the the state,
they are really struggling to be able to provide the
services that their constituents expect. Basic
services. We're talking about making sure that
their parks stay open, their public libraries stay
open, that there's a public pool that that kids can go
to in the summer. So we're going to have to look at
that formula of how we fund municipalities and cities
to make sure they can provide those services.
>> You know, local governments are really
struggling under the weight of a lack of funding. We
need to do better and make sure that local communities
have resources. My platform of building the economy is
really focused on looking at the main streets around
the state, saying, what do you need? What are your
priorities? Giving some resources so that then they
can start to generate momentum and be able to
have local economies that are providing good jobs,
health care and the services that Wisconsinites
need. >> There's long been a
funding flaw that has made it more difficult for
municipalities to be able to get the resources, or
even the money that goes to Madison, to come back at
the same rate. This has been an issue in Milwaukee.
That's why we've seen the raise in sales tax in the
city of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County. But that
didn't change the formula. The percentage is still the
same. So effectively, there's even more money
coming in. But at a time also when people are
feeling the pinch, you know, at the grocery store or
anytime they're at any checkout counter. Now we
have this increased sales tax, which is making it
even harder for people. But the reason that is the case
is because Madison has failed in the legislature,
has failed to actually implement a real solution
to make it easier for municipalities to get the
support they deserve. And we're going to be convening
a group of local elected officials of mayors very
soon to be able to have this conversation, have
this discussion in a real way.
>> Reporting from Madison. I'm Zac Schultz for "Here&
Now". >> Wisconsin's unemployment
rate sits at 3.5%. That's lower than the national
average. But for people newly entering the job
market like recent graduates, what are their
prospects? Is the labor market cooling and what
role does AI have? That's a lot of questions. We take
them to Scott Hodek, economist with the state
Department of Workforce Development. And thanks
>> Yeah, absolutely. Thank you.
>> So what does the Wisconsin labor market look
like right now for new entrants into it?
>> And we're seeing some deceleration, some slowing
at the national level. And, you know, a couple that
with with rising prices, which are a real drag on
the economy and some of the other indicators that show
some changing spending patterns and, you know,
flattening trend in real disposable income, savings
rates, things like that. And we're definitely seeing
then, you know, a slowing national economy. And of
course, then in Wisconsin, we feel that as well. When
I, when I look though at at our overall labor market,
there are there are some bright spots too. I mean,
like you noted, we, we do have a historically low
unemployment rate. So if you look at, say, national
job openings, data, you do tend to see that there the
higher rates and the separation rates tend to be
really tight together. But there's still, you know, a
relatively speaking, a decent amount of openings.
We've had plenty of times in the past where we've had,
you know, technological change. And that definitely
does cause some disruption. We've actually done work
for the Governor's task force on AI and looked into
where there's exposure amongst these occupations
to AI, and there's a lot there. There will be a lot
of exposure, but it doesn't necessarily indicate
substitution. And a lot of cases it will be folks
working with AI. And that's that's something we're
already seeing. That said, new grads have always
adapted, and there are a lot of job openings out
there. And given demographics just with the
retirement of the baby boomers, there are a lot of
positions coming open that are simply because of
retirements. So there there actually are a lot of
openings and opportunities out there. It's just a
matter of kind of connecting to them.
>> What are the so-called hot jobs right now?
>> Yeah, a couple of the industries. And again, so
I'm going to base this off growth, but we're seeing a
lot of growth in health care. And that makes sense
with an aging population, but also with retirements.
And we're seeing a lot of growth in construction as
well. And you might you might look at construction
and say, okay, well, that's, that's mostly manual labor.
And it's there is a lot of that, but it's not always
the case as well. There's skilled trades like
electricians and plumbers, there's machine operators,
and then you've got the larger companies that do
require accountants and it. And so you do have a lot of
different occupations mixed in in these fields that
have been doing well. But also, you know, if you look
at manufacturing over the over the last few years,
it's been a downward trend in employment. And honestly,
over throughout the the past decades, we've seen
staggered drops in employment, in
manufacturing, which we've seen nationally as well.
This is a kind of a developed world sort of
trend. But what we do see is that there are still
there's still difficulty hiring into, into
manufacturing as well. And it's, it we're looking at a
ton of employment in Wisconsin and a ton of a
ton of output and contribution to our gross
domestic product here. So there are a lot of
positions there that are open as well, but we don't
necessarily think about that sometimes as job
seekers. Like, is this industry growing? If not,
should I not apply there? And the truth is, there's
so many retirements across a lot of these different
industries that it's it's more a matter of thinking
of finding kind of the occupations that fit. Right.
>> So what are your long term projections for trends?
The economy? I mean, are people like you looking at
potential recession? >> Well, we don't really
speculate on on what we're going to see in the future.
What I can tell you is that the trend right now has
been has been slowing. That said, if if you were to
just sort of grab news articles around the country,
you would see that that while that some economists
are projecting that it'll climb back up, some are
projecting that it will have we'll have lower GDP
this this year. And there there are not actually a
ton of them calling for a recession immediately.
Again, you know, that doesn't necessarily mean
that we won't have one or or that one isn't coming.
But what I see right now, what I can see right now is
what I can tell you. And that's that we're seeing a
slowing economy. But even despite all the, the, the
pushback from things like, you know, tariffs, the war
in Iran, rising prices, things like that, we're
still seeing growth and we're still seeing low
unemployment rates. And and here in Wisconsin, we can
look at our unemployment insurance claims data. And
we're still seeing that on trend and below the last
couple of years as well. So so there, yeah, it's, it's,
it's, it's difficult to say with all the volatility and
uncertainty right now, what we'll see going forward.
>> Yeah, indeed. All right. Well Scott Hodek thanks so
much. >> Absolutely. Thank you.
>> A federal judge in Madison today considered
the case of a Wisconsin tribal nation restricting
non-tribal fishing for walleye and muskies.
Members of the Lac du Flambeau band of Lake
Superior Chippewa Indians arrived at the courthouse
after traveling since before dawn to hear the
arguments before the judge. The state of Wisconsin
filed a federal complaint and early this month was
granted a temporary restraining order to
prevent the fishing prohibition against
Wisconsin licensed anglers. The tribe seeks to restrict
fishing on 19 lakes, including fence, white sand
and Flambeau in Vilas County, arguing a loss of
walleye and muskellunge population.
>> There's 260 lakes on the Lac du Flambeau reservation.
If we were to shut down 19, there's 241 more lakes you
can fish and the. 19 you can fish also with
different species. It's just the muskie and walleye
we're trying to preserve. We're trying to see them
make a comeback. And I don't know why we have to
fight about it, but I guess that's just the way things
happen. >> The initial temporary
injunction allows all fishing to continue on the
19 disputed lakes. Following today's hearing,
Judge William Conley will decide whether the Lac du
Flambeau has sovereign authority to restrict
non-tribal members from fishing within its
reservation. In other news, a lawsuit against five
Wisconsin sheriffs in Walworth, Brower marathon,
Kenosha and Sauk counties over Ice detainers or
immigration holds waffles between being heard in
state or federal court. A federal judge in Madison
this month remanded the case to the Wisconsin
Supreme Court. The sheriffs wanted heard in federal
court and have appealed that remand. The question
before any court is whether those 48 hour ice holds are
legal in Wisconsin. Our next guest unpacks the
issue. Bryna Godar, staff attorney at the UW Law
School State Democracy Research Initiative, joins
us now. Thanks very much for being here.
>> Thanks for having me. >> Well, first of all, how
does an Ice detainer work? >> An Ice detainer is a
request sent by Ice to local or state law
enforcement agencies, asking them to hold
somebody for an additional 48 hours beyond when they
would otherwise be released under state law. And these
are voluntary requests. So the local law enforcement
officers can decide whether to follow that request or
not. If they do follow it, then the person would
remain in custody beyond when they would otherwise
be released. >> Waiting for Ice to come
and retrieve them. >> Yes. Yeah.
>> And so how common is the use of these Ice detainers
across Wisconsin? >> So according to some
data from October 2021 through June 2025, I sent
more than 3300 detainer requests. Not all of those
were necessarily honored, coming in. And counties
really vary in whether they are working with Ice to
honor those, or if they have policies that limit
how frequently they honor those detainers.
>> Presumably, this has ticked up during the
current Trump administration. So what has
that cooperation on the part of sheriffs and
sheriff's departments resulted in?
>> So the petitioners in this case are arguing that
that results in unlawful detention of individuals
past when they would typically be released. And
that can have significant impacts for individuals
potentially dealing with child care or dealing with
missing work. This can apply to people who are not
just at the end of a criminal sentence, but also
in pretrial detention. So who might otherwise be
detained for a relatively short time? Those
additional couple days can have a significant impact.
And there are also concerns that cooperation between
local law enforcement and Ice can erode trust in
local communities with law enforcement, and lead to
underreporting of crimes and less of a close
relationship with the immigration community.
>> So the lawsuit argues that these holds are not
legal because sheriffs have no authority with
administrative warrants to conduct a second arrest of
someone. Would you expect that the state and federal
courts would have a different view on that?
>> I think it depends on whether they view this as
really an issue of state law or federal law. So the
plaintiffs in this case are arguing that this is really
just an issue of state law. And that is something that
you would sort of expect the Wisconsin courts to
actually have the more expertise on and be able to
decide in a more authoritative way. What the
respondents are arguing is that there's this federal
law issue of whether federal law sort of
independently provides some basis for that arrest
authority. And so if they succeed in getting this
case into federal court, the federal courts might be
more open to that. And it seems like respondents
think that federal court might be more favorable to
it because they are seeking to get it into federal
court. enforcement, under state
statute, can arrest if there are reasonable
grounds to believe that the person is committing or has
committed a crime. Wouldn't an argument be that someone
entering into the country illegally and staying
constitutes a crime? >> So first of all, the
statute, it is not a crime under state law to enter
and be in the country unlawfully. And so it's not
clear that that statute itself would give the
authorization for state law enforcement to make that
arrest. But even if it did, federal law only
criminalizes a narrow subset of immigration
violations, particularly entering the country
unlawfully. So somebody, for example, who enters
with a lawful visa and then overstays that visa has not
actually committed a federal immigration crime.
Also, Ice detainers can issue two folks with green
cards who then are facing deportation proceedings
because they have committed a crime subsequent to
entering the country, but they are not actually
unauthorized until they go through those proceedings.
And so there are many people who are subject to
Ice detainers who have not committed any sort of
federal immigration crime. >> So if it is decided in
state court, would it only apply in Wisconsin versus
applying nationally if it was decided in federal
court? >> Yes. So if it's decided
in Wisconsin, it would only apply in Wisconsin. The
reach of a federal court decision would depend on
what issues they decide and also what level of court it
gets to. So if the federal court ultimately rules
mostly on Wisconsin law and based on Wisconsin statutes,
then it wouldn't apply beyond the state. It would
just sort of be persuasive to other courts, like a
Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling would be as well, if
the federal court were to rule on more of a blanket
federal law issue, and particularly if that were
to get appealed up to the Seventh Circuit or the US
Supreme Court, then that could have broader national
implications. goal, for it to go all the
way up? is. The merits briefing
hasn't happened yet, either at the state level or at
the federal court level. The Federal court remanded
based on a timing issue of the filing. And so we don't
really have a good sense yet of how viable it would
be for this to become really a major federal law
case that goes all the way. >> All right. Well, we'll
see what happens. Bryna. Godar, thanks so much.
>> Thank you. >> For more on this and
other issues facing website at PBS
wisconsin.org 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.