>> Ron Johnson weighs in on the president's plan to
nationalize elections. Democrats reintroduced
their bill to legalize weed. And what can we learn from
the Republicans who are not running for the state
Senate? This is inside Wisconsin politics. I'm
WPR Capital Bureau Chief Shawn Johnson here with
WPR capital reporter Anya PBS Wisconsin senior political
reporter Zac Schultz and political reporter Rich Kramer
in Eau Claire. Hey. everyone.
>> Hey. >> So let's start with what
Senator Johnson said this week about something that
President Trump said. And, I mean, I think we've all
gotten pretty used to, especially in swing state
Wisconsin, hearing pretty broad claims about what's
happening in elections or changes that people want to
see, especially President Trump. But this is pretty
big, even by his standards. First of all, Rich, what
did the president say about nationalizing elections?
>> So during a podcast interview, President Trump
mentioned that Republicans should just take over
election administration. He talked about nationalizing
it. He also mentioned 15 different states where this
might happen or where he'd like to see it happen, but
he didn't specify which ones. So that's gotten a
lot of people's attention. Based on some of those
comments you referenced from the president. You
know, we had the 2020 situation with the
president denying the outcome, essentially, and
that led to January 6th, the riot at the US Capitol.
So definitely, people are paying attention to what
President Trump said. >> Yeah. So you mentioned
it 15 states. We don't know which ones, but we just
kind of assume, hey, we're Wisconsin, one of the most
important political states. Every year we got to be on
that list, right. So Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson
was asked about this at his tele town hall.
What did he have to say? >> Senator Ron Johnson said
Senator Johnson said he wouldn't like to see
nationalized elections, but he did offer some ideas for
how to set basic standards across the country. He
talked about the Save act. Essentially, that would
require people to prove their citizenship before
they register to vote. To do that, you'd need
documents like certified birth certificate or a
passport, something that a lot of people might not
have access to. But Senator Johnson went beyond that
and also said that he thinks early voting has
gone way too far in this country, and that he he's
generally opposed to mail in balloting of absentee
ballots. >> So it feels like there's
a lot to unpack with both what the president said and
with what Senator Johnson said. I mean, first of all,
the idea of nationalizing Wisconsin's elections, how
would that work? I mean, tangibly, what would that
mean. >> In Wisconsin? It's not
really possible without some drastic changes. First
off, they'd have to be the votes to pass it in
Congress, which they're not. And Wisconsin's election
system is decentralized like so many other states.
We have an elections commission that has very
little direct oversight over how elections are run
all the way down to like the township level, where
there may be 30 or 40 voters and a clerk that
works part time. That's the beauty of Wisconsin
elections. And that's why all the conspiracy theories
about fraud can usually be put to rest among people
that actually are paying attention and listening to
facts is that you can't rig an election that's run by
so many different people. The conspiracy is the
entire state at this point, so it really wouldn't work
here without some sort of dramatic federal court
takeover that, you know, goes too far down the line
for what most people can rationally conceive at this
point. >> You actually did a
feature once, I remember, where you talked to a bunch
of election clerks who have many duties, as I recall.
>> Yeah. That's right. I mean, that's the thing with
this kind of federated system is that you have all
of these highly skilled local kind of civic civil
servants, I should say, and they do all kinds of things
that we never think about. They have to think about,
like the size of the envelopes, and they have to
be creased in a certain way, all these little things.
And so that's also like a built experience level. And
so when you make these changes, first of all,
there's rules about kind of how far out you need to
make changes to election processes, but then also
how just get the knowledge to be able to kind of
implement these nitty gritty kind of
>> And so, you know, we can't read the president's
mind here, but we do know that we're in an election
cycle where there's a lot of talk that this might be
a Democratic wave year. And everybody's always trying
to predict waves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it
doesn't. But if you look at the polling generically
right now, it's shaping up that way anyway. Do you
think this is sort of a way of putting down a marker
and saying that this is the kind of thing we're going
to fight over in court if things don't go our way?
>> Well, it's definitely setting the table for
conspiracies if Republicans lose in the fall, because
the easiest way to convince your base that they never
lost it was stolen from us, which we saw in 2020. There
are still people holding on to this idea that Donald
Trump had the election stolen from him, and
there's still conspiracies about ballot dumps from the
city of Milwaukee running around the internet just
this week, having to be debunked yet again. And so
what's the best way to set your base up for that? Tell
them right now it's going to be stolen ahead of time
that we have to nationalize it if we don't do it. But
this is also another example of Donald Trump
shoots from the hip, and then everyone else has to
take it seriously and explain either why it is or
is not possible. And we've been doing that since he
came down the golden escalator ten years ago.
It's not a new thing that we have to sit there and
say, well, would it really be possible to do this? And
sometimes it's farcical, but we have to take it
seriously because so many of the things previously in
politics that we didn't think were possible, he has
pushed through somehow or they've materialized enough
for people. Take it seriously. And so that's
what we have to do. Talking about nationalizing
elections when everyone knows that's not how
they're run in Wisconsin. >> It does feel that way.
So turning to the state legislature, Ana, there was
a group of Democratic lawmakers and activists who
introduced a bill this week would legalize marijuana
for medicinal and recreational purposes. This
is something that, if you look at polling, has
widespread support among both parties. It's one of
those issues. And so why did you say in your story
about this bill that it is doomed at the Capitol?
>> Yeah, I mean, a very astute listener pointed out
to me that they made this introduction on Groundhog
Day and that this is a thing that happens every
single year, that the Democrats introduce a full
legalization bill. Governor Tony Evers, also in his
proposed budget every two years, has proposed
legalizing marijuana. And it it won't happen because
Republicans who are in leadership in the
legislature. So not every Republican lawmaker, but
Republican leadership says we don't want it. So there
is some amount of leadership support for
medicinal marijuana. There is not unity among those
leaders in terms of what it will look like. There is
certainly no support among the most powerful
Republicans for recreational marijuana. And
so the Democrats will do this introduction. It won't
go anywhere. We might see a medicinal bill, maybe come
forward in the Senate session is also about to
end in a couple of months. So I don't necessarily have
high hopes for that. I think the authors actually
don't have high hopes for that either, but this just
ends up being a little bit of a marketing or a
messaging kind of move from Democrats in an election
year. the session could wrap up
in the Assembly as soon as this month. They may wrap
up their business, and they're both going to
be done by March at some time. Is that how you get
bills to become law when you want it to happen?
>> You get bills to become law by saying, this is what
we would do if we were in power. The message really
is to the voters for this fall, saying Democrats, for
the first time in a long time, have a legitimate
chance at gaining control of one or both houses.
Obviously, the governor's race is up for grabs as
well. If they had full power, you would fully
expect to see a real discussion at the Capitol
about medicinal marijuana or fully recreational legal
weed. And what would that look like? Who would run it?
Would it be state run dispensaries? Would it be a
wide open market? Who state model would we follow?
Those are all the conversations that have
happened over the past decade and Shon you and I
were talking, we covered this the last time
Democrats were in power, when the conversation
hadn't quite shifted to fully legalized. Democrats
were still talking medicinal then.
>> Yeah, I got to say, this sort of tentative
atmosphere when it comes to moving forward with
legalization, either medicinal or otherwise, has
been around for a long time. It's very, very there with
Republicans. They do not want to move on
recreational, obviously, and seem to not want to
really move on medicinal. Or they could have done it
by now. But yeah, it was 2000. The 2009 session, I
think we were we were 2010. >> The end.
>> Would have been 2010. And Democrats had, believe
it or not, the governor's office, the Assembly and
the Senate, they could do what they want and they
just got cold feet over that one, even though it
was very much a passionate cause for some of their
members. more normalized since then.
So a majority of states have a medicinal marijuana
program. I think 22 have a recreational program,
including our neighbors in Minnesota, Michigan and so
Illinois. And so one of the arguments, again, from both
sides of the aisle is that Wisconsin is losing money
when people go across the border to kind of to reach
those products. And so that argument has been
compelling, I think, to some Republicans, a lot of
Democrats, but again, not the Republicans who
actually get legislation across the finish line.
>> And just an aside here right now, you know, we've
got this these these other products that are
essentially marijuana but derived from hemp that are
all over the state. I mean, some gas stations sell
these products. So it's just kind of an interesting
paradox. >> So you alluded this.
Whether or not this actually becomes legalized
in Wisconsin that decides that. And the next governor,
we could keep saying this year after year,
potentially on this issue with.
that. >> We could. Yeah.
>> Well, we know it's not happening now. This won't
even get a hearing. >> I think. Yeah, yeah.
Pretty clearly. In fact, a few sessions ago when there
was a hearing on a medicinal bill, they held
it after the legislature had adjourned. It's one of
those issues where they acknowledge we got to talk
about it. Our constituents are talking about this
issue. They just don't seem to want to know what they
want to do with it. But the next legislature, there is
some movement in terms of what might happen in the
state Senate, where Republicans currently have
an 18 to 15 majority. You had a couple retirements
recently, Rob Hutton in Brookfield and Steve Knox
in Whitewater. Very different lawmakers, I
guess. Just kind of an open question to all of you. But
I'll start with you, Zach. Like, what do we make of
this? Does this matter that we see these retirements
coming up here as we try to read the tea leaves of 2026?
>> They matter for different reasons. Hutton
is in one of the most vulnerable Republican
Senate districts. He's the number one target, arguably
from Democrats, the number one expected pickup. They
need two to flip the chamber. He's number one.
The fact that he's leaving does make it easier. It's
also a sign that he may be looking at and saying it's
an uphill battle. A lot of politicians across party
lines love to retire before they lose. No one wants to
go out as a loser. They all just slip away a cycle
early if they can, when they when they know what's
coming. So whether he's leaving for that reason or
because he's just sick and tired of the Capitol, we
can't answer. But Democrats certainly were pushing the
message that this show is a Republicans think they're
going to be losing this fall. And certainly that
seat Knox was not really in danger of losing his seat.
He is completely striking example, and he's one of
the most conservative Republicans in the Capitol,
and that he's willing to buck his own party over and
over, voting against multiple budgets, forcing
Republicans in the Senate to find Democrats to help
pass budgets. He is a true believer in what he says
and stands by his vote. Him leaving sends a different
message of either he thinks they may lose and doesn't
want to be in the minority, as you mentioned before.
Shon. Or it could simply be he's done with that
kind of politics. And what will be most interesting is
to see who takes that spot, because one of the things
that we saw over and over in the Walker era is when a
Republican Senate seat opened up, it was the most
conservative Assembly member from that district,
that one. So over time, Robin Vos and the Assembly
saw most of his most strident Republicans move
and then become state senators, sometimes to his
chagrin. Those weren't people that he always got
along with, and that created that relationship
more than a decade of how Assembly Republicans and
how Senate Republicans have gotten along. So it will be
interesting to see who takes his place in that
seat. >> Very likely conservative,
though, as you look at the numbers for those districts,
I think Kamala Harris won the Hutton seat by close to
six points. So that is a very good seat for
Democrats. I want to say. Steve Knox in his district,
Donald Trump won by 27 or 28. So even in the bluest
of waves, that is probably going to be a conservative
district. >> Yeah. I mean, I think
Democrats have been trying to kind of spin this as
like, oh, Republicans are running scared. They know
we're going to sweep the legislature. They know
we're going to have this takeover. And I think that,
you know, there might be an argument to be made that
the Hutton seat is going to be a really competitive
fight. And so a person could decide, you know,
maybe I don't want to, maybe I just want a major
legal settlement, and I don't want to participate
in a this. >> Did happen. He did win a
large sum of money. >> Yeah. So maybe he wants
to kind of, you know, bow out of what might be a
Dukes out kind of fight. But I don't think that you
can make the same argument for Steve Knox. Right. And
so I think that it's actually a little bit more
of a nuanced case than just like a, oh, the blue wave
is coming. >> Yeah. He's he's 73 and
he's been doing this since 1991, I believe, and has
always been kind of that sort of legislature, which
we're watching a couple more seats in the Senate,
too. I mean, it's not just that the Hutton seat is
going to decide that they need more things to happen.
Democrats do if they want to flip that chamber.
>> That's right. I mean, first of all, they have to
defend Jeff Smith, who is a state senator up in my neck
of the woods here near Eau Claire or in Eau Claire,
representing this area. So they need to defend that.
But also, like you both, you were all mentioning
they have to win a couple. They need a net positive
gain of two. If speaking of tea leaves some campaign
finance reports recently offered a little bit of
that, we saw that Senator Van Wanggaard only raised
$30,000, give or take. And that's just that's just not
the kind of money you raise if you're going to run for
re-election. He is undecided about retirement. In fact,
a person with his office said the fundraising
indicates that he hasn't made a decision yet. So if
that seat opens up, you know, generally open seats
are a little more competitive for a, say,
Democrats trying to take over a district that might
be a little safer for Republicans.
>> Yeah. I want to say that when you did a story about
that district, Rich, you talked to his spokesperson
and he basically said, you know, van really doesn't
want to think about this right now. So that does not
sound like somebody who's super eager to run in a, in
a highly competitive race that could determine the
balance of the Senate. That's like another one
that Kamala Harris narrowly won.
>> Yeah. And just more broadly, some of those
finance reports from these fundraising committees in
the state Assembly and state Senate on the
Republican and Democratic side, also painted a little
bit of a picture showing some strategy, maybe again,
a little bit of speculation here, but a lot of money
went into the Republican Assembly campaign committee
and just and Democrats were able to raise more in the
state Senate fundraising committees than their
Republican counterparts. So, you know, one could look at
that and say, okay, Republicans are going all
in on holding the Assembly majority, and they don't
feel as confident about the Senate majority.
>> And Rich, real quick, you did some reporting on
congressional fundraising. 2 what's going on in the
first and the third congressional districts in
Wisconsin, the third in western Wisconsin,
represented by Derrick Van Orden, the first by Bryan
Steil, those are both by the numbers, in theory,
competitive. What's terms of what you're seeing,
at least money raising. >> So in practice, it
doesn't appear that the first is considered as
gettable for Democrats. So Bryan Steil is a good
fundraiser. He ended the last three months of 2025
with $5 million in the bank. His nearest Democratic
competitor had something like 130,000 or maybe even
less, just not really competitive in the third
district. It has been a bit of an arms race between the
Democrat Rebecca Cooke and Republican Congressman
Derrick Van Orden. They've both raised around $1
million every three months that they've reported. Most
recently, Rebecca Cooke raised more around $200,000
more than Van Orden. So it's still going strong in
the third district. >> All right. And I know
you're working on a story coming up about the
Republican primary in the seventh Congressional
District. Real quick, before we wrap up here,
Zach, what do you have going on in coming weeks
here. >> Looking at mining in
northern Wisconsin, drilling to explore some of
the deposits that I identified nearly half a
century ago to see if they're viable.
>> All right. And Ana. >> I hate to say it, but I
am going in the weeds on marijuana legislation.
>> There's so many puns. >> So many puns. We'll see
how many irresistible you cross out of my final draft.
>> I may add some. >> Or that's.
>> Just a little bit too much fun. So you're going
to look at the politics that we just talked about
and whether it could happen. That's right. All right.
I'm looking forward to reading that one. That will
do it for us today. Thanks for joining us on this
week's Inside Wisconsin Politics. Be sure to follow
us on pbswisconsin.org or YouTube or wherever you get
your podcasts.