>> A gerrymandering arms race is happening around
the country this year. Why not in Wisconsin? Also, how
some big orders out of Washington could affect
Wisconsin. And a look at the closing days of our
state Supreme Court race. This is inside Wisconsin
politics.
I'm Shawn Johnson here with my colleagues,
Anya van Wagtendonk Zac Schultz and Rich Cramer in
Eau Claire. Hey, everyone. >> Hey. Hello. Hey.
>> So Rich, there had been sort of this hope by
Democrats that there was this one case in this
courtroom in Madison that could potentially redraw
the congressional lines ahead of the midterm
elections. It seems like this courtroom said, no,
that door is actually closed. What did they say
this week? >> So they said that they
don't really have the authority to do anything
about the maps. The lawsuit is seeking a redraw because
of some things that happened back in 2022. Well,
the Supreme Court is the one that put those maps in
effect, but the circuit court judges said that they
just they can't overrule the Supreme Court. So
essentially, they dismissed the case. And it seems all
but likely that the current districts, which are held
by six Republicans and two Democrats, will remain the
same for the November election.
>> And just kind of zooming out as to why this feels
like it matters more at this moment in time, you
have this redistricting battle going across the
country where Republican states have redrawn their
congressional maps to add more Republican seats.
Democratic states have responded in kind. Where
does this leave Wisconsin? Big picture. Zack, when it
comes to what everything looks like here as part of
that battle. to be operating under the
same congressional lines Evers version of the maps,
if you recall, under the old least change model,
that the Supreme Court at that time run by
conservatives, dictated this was Tony Evers version
of the old Republican map, slightly adjusting them.
The most competitive district remains the third,
which is Western Wisconsin La Crosse and going up
through Rich's area. And that race has been close
for a few cycles. It will remain close this fall.
Democrats across the possible pickup, but the
rest of the districts, barring a huge wave, look
like they're going to stay the way they've been. There
were Democrats who were thinking Wisconsin could
get in this redistricting game. Most of the states
doing that around the country are doing that with
one party rule, where the Democrats or Republicans
control the entire state so they can do this mid-decade,
even though they're not supposed to be. Wisconsin
obviously doesn't have that. It would have had to go
through the Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court
has consistently said, we do not want to touch these
congressional lines. They have been given options
multiple times, and they've said no through original
action. So that's why in this case, there were two
different plaintiffs that said, how about we go
through the local courts first and see if it can
work the way up to the Supreme Court under a law
passed by Scott Walker and the Republicans, that meant
these changes had to go to this panel of three judges,
and there were two panels created by the Supreme
Court. One of them has said, well, we'll have a trial in
April of 27. So a year away, obviously nowhere near in
time for 26. The other one was the one that dismissed
the case this week. The other panel that still has
a case out there has not ruled on their motion to
dismiss. It's possible that could get thrown out under
the very same grounds. And it looks like at this time
the floor is in the law that was passed that was
supposed to hear this because it requires Supreme
Court to set up these judges to do something. And
the judges say it's not clear what we have the
authority to do in this case, which is why they
dismissed it yet another time where these this
challenge will not get to the Supreme Court under
this venue. >> To the dismay of many
Democrats who said, hey, we have A43 majority on the
Liberals do on the state Supreme Court. Let's try
there. Maybe not the legislature this time
because it's not going to go anywhere there or will
it on you because, you know, some people may have heard
about this push by Governor Tony Evers to ban partizan
gerrymandering in Wisconsin. He's going to call a
special session for that later this month. Just a
thought exercise here. Could it work? Could that
change the lines? >> I mean, if history is
any guide, Evers special sessions don't often go
anywhere, right? Republicans who control the
legislature, they have to show up, but they gavel in
and gavel out very often on his agenda. But there was
actually maybe some signs that there could be
something to this. So initially, first of all,
Republicans did not sort of dismiss it out of hand,
which was notable. Robin Vos said that he would be
willing to negotiate on this last. I asked him
about it a couple weeks ago. He said, like, it hasn't
come up yet. So it's possible that a deal kind
of won't be brokered. But when I've spoken to experts
about it, what they say is that because of the redrawn
state maps of two years ago, kind of GOP guaranteed hold
of the legislature is no longer so guaranteed. And
so both parties would need to kind of map out the 2026
elections, the 2028 elections, the 2030
elections going back and forth. And so because of
that, it's not clear that gerrymandering in Wisconsin
is beneficial to either party in a way that in
California or Florida, it is guaranteed sort of
beneficial to one party or another because we have
divided government and these super, super close
elections, because we are so purple. Gerrymandering
is not necessarily beneficial to either side.
So maybe getting rid of it altogether is actually the
politically better choice. >> But as a constitutional
amendment in the year 2026, not going to happen because
it just it takes too long. >> Well, certainly. Right.
So it won't affect the midterms in any kind of way.
But if there were any kind of like negotiation there
and constitutional bit longer, and Republicans
have said they don't agree with sort of the language
that Evers has put forward, that it's too vague and
it's too broad. So there's all these details that
would need to get hashed out. But I think this kind
of broader conversation, knowing that voters pretty
categorically, regardless gerrymandering. They don't
subject to gerrymandering. It could be a really
interesting issue to kind of be in the water during
this election year. >> But just to be clear,
the most important thing for viewers to know is that
even if a deal somehow got passed like the Hail Mary
of all Hail Mary's for gerrymandering reform, it
maps. The next time this would come up would be
redistricting in 2032 after the 30 census. So these
maps would be locked in place. The only way they're
going to change, barring the Wisconsin Supreme Court,
is if Democrats win a trifecta this fall, then
they would actually have one party rule to do what
we've seen in these other states. But otherwise, it's
not going to happen. >> So what about that other
case, though? You alluded to it, Rich. You're
familiar with this case. It's been filed by law
forward. And it just took a different approach to this
redistricting question. >> Yeah, I'd say it's
slightly different approach. It's kind of getting at the
same thing. The the overall complaint is that the
districts are designed to favor incumbents. So that's
slightly different than the argument that, well,
Republicans drew the districts to favor
Republicans, but it's in a lot of ways very similar.
So that case is proceeding. The parties in the lawsuit
seem to be more amicable with one another. They've
all agreed on these court dates that will start in
2027. So again, that's not going to result in any
changes to the congressional map in
Wisconsin before November. And if it's not thrown out
on the same grounds that the other case was
dismissed, it'll be interesting to see how that
plays out before the three judge panel.
>> Yeah, I would say there's a pretty good
chance that we are going to. While it is not really a
scheduled thing to do in 2027, I think we're going
to be talking about this map in 2027. I mean, we
just think about what wins elections in Wisconsin or
anywhere from a party's perspective. Well, you got
You still have to have that. You got to have a message.
Voters like you got to have money. But what is maybe
more powerful than all of those lines and districts
that favor you, you change the math because you can't
win in a district where you have those other three. If
the voters are tilted to the other side. So I think
in this hyper partizan era, they're definitely going to
be talking about this in 2027, whether it is in the
legislature with Democrats in power or the Supreme
Court, where A43 majority for Liberals now could
potentially be five two next year, we just don't
know. So I think that's something that like,
obviously is going to be on our radar for a while.
>> Redistricting is always in play in Wisconsin, and
it'll never be a topic that we're not interested in.
It's not not not relevant. >> That's right. We don't
have to wait for the next census. I'm feeling so from
voting maps to voting rich, there was also this big
executive order from President Trump this week
dealing with mail in voting. What did the president call
for there? >> He called for some very
sweeping changes, essentially a federal
overhaul and a lot more participation from the
regard to voting lists and and absentee voting. So the
executive order directs federal agencies to create
lists of U.S. citizens who are eligible, eligible to
vote in every state, including Wisconsin. And
then it also directs the U.S. Postal Service to not
send any mail in ballots to people who aren't on those
lists, and it would just give the President Donald
Trump's administration a lot of power over who gets
to vote and who doesn't. So it's likely to wind up in
court. In fact, a lawsuit has already been filed.
There's a lot of questions about whether the president
can can do this. And that's what we're going to see the
different parties in the lawsuit argue. So it's it's
a big change that's been proposed, but it's just an
executive order. So it doesn't carry the same kind
of weight as a congressional act or
something like that. >> So I think what a lot of
people would be rightfully wondering is, is this going
to happen? Is this something that is likely to
happen in Wisconsin specifically?
>> The first thing I always look at when these kind of
things come out of Trump White House specifically is
what is the reaction for politicians in Wisconsin?
We saw universally all the Democrats, including
Governor Evers, use a profanity online to
describe his reaction to this. And we didn't see
anything from Republicans. And if this had a prayer or
a chance of actually being legal or valid in Wisconsin,
there would have been some of the usual Trump
supporting Republicans that would have come out and
said, yes, thank you, President Trump. It's about
time. I didn't see any of that. Maybe somewhere it
was put out and I missed it. But the overall reaction
was a lot of crickets from Republicans. That signals
most election observers not legal in Wisconsin.
Unenforceable in Wisconsin would remove the right to
vote for absentee ballots. We have. You can register
on day of. There's just so many things that do not
apply to how Wisconsin elections are run, barring
the fact that it's not even legal constitutionally
across the rest of the country. According to every
election expert that we ever talked to. I mean,
Shawn, you've covered this just as long. It's not
possible for the federal government to dictate how
elections are run. That's done by the states.
>> No, I mean, actually, Rich was just doing an
interview with a legal expert and Rich, I'm
stealing your story here. But the expert was just
reading from their phone the section of the
Constitution that says, basically, this is a right
that belongs to states. Anya, there was an order
this week, though not from the president, from the
United States Supreme Court, that overturned a
conversion therapy ban in Colorado. We have a
conversion therapy ban in Wisconsin. What does that
U.S. Supreme Court decision mean for us here?
>> Yeah, so this is kind of there's sort of two levels
at which this decision kind of functions in Wisconsin.
So to go back in time a little bit last summer,
there was this big Wisconsin state Supreme
Court decision. That is the reason that we have this
statewide conversion therapy ban, but it is an
administrative rule. It's not a law. And so kind of
putting aside the conversation around what
that did for the balance of powers, it was this kind of
huge decision. One of the outcomes of that was that
agencies that want to impose rules can do so. And
one of the ones that was imposed was around
professional behavior for therapists and marriage
counselors. And so according to the rules of
their conduct, they cannot practice conversion therapy,
which is sort of the practice of, of counseling
people towards certain gender sexual identities.
So that is the form that our ban takes. So that's
different than how it looks in Colorado. All of which
is to say that the answer of how this affects us in
Wisconsin is it really depends on who you ask. So
according to the governor's office and the governor
supports this ban on conversion therapy, the ban
here is still in place according sort of pending
litigation was kind of the the, you know, tempering of
that. And then I spoke to conservative kind of
supporters of overturning bans on this, including at
the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. And they
said, well, as soon as the lawsuit is filed, you know,
that will go after the Wisconsin ban. And so the
question is, is Will going to file that lawsuit? So
right now it seems to be on the books. And also we have
many local versions of these laws around Wisconsin.
But sort of how soon will this be then challenged
here in the state? That sort of the big question.
>> But definitely it carries more weight than
your average executive order, I suppose, because
they are the court of last resort.
>> And yeah, and they said that these types of bans
violate a counselor's free speech. That's a First
Amendment violation. That's a very big and it was an 8
to 1 decision, right? Even liberals on the Supreme
Court found. >> That what's interesting
is more likely that would be filed in federal court,
which really would take away the venue of the
Liberal majority in Wisconsin Supreme Court,
even though it's a state administrative rule. This
was a federal court decision, free speech.
First amendment is a federal right, so they
don't have to worry about Wisconsin's Liberals
running the court. They can skip the venue and head
right to Madison and federal court.
>> Sure. So we got to talk about our court, though,
because we have an election on Tuesday. By the time we
do the show next week, we're going to know who the
next justice is. There were some fundraising numbers
out this week. Rich, as we wind up this campaign, what
story did they tell? >> Well, they told that
Liberal appeals court justice excuse me, Liberal
Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor is continuing to
really pull ahead in terms of fundraising over
conservative appeals. Justice Judge Maria Lazar.
So Taylor, in this last reporting period, raised
four times as much as Lazar. She also got donations from
around 20,000 more than 20,000 people. Lazar
donations came from about six 700 people. So a big
discrepancy there. Also, Taylor really outspent
Lazar this time. So the numbers actually represent
an improvement for Lazar compared to the last
reporting period that ended at the end of last year,
which was a 10 to 1 gap with Taylor in the lead,
but still not the kind of numbers you want to have
with a, you know, days before the election.
>> And some money coming to the candidates from the
political parties. Zac, you've done some reporting
on this. One of these people is going to be a
justice very soon, and they will have that political
donation basically on their resume. Are they going to
have to step down when these parties have business
before the court? >> The short answer is no.
And there are two different courts that have said that
is the reason, the first of which is the Wisconsin
Supreme Court. And when the conservatives ruled the
court about a little more than a decade ago, they put
in place the recusal standard that still governs
the court. That says just because you received a
campaign donation does not mean that you are biased in
part for that party. Part of that reason, the
rationale was, well, what if your opponent donates
money to you and then tries to kick you off the case?
Another one is the United States Supreme Court has
similar rulings that have been applied multiple times
that say that just because you received a campaign
donation does not mean you have to step down. This has
been tried repeatedly. They've Republicans have
gone after Janet Protasiewicz multiple times,
including on redistricting cases over and over because
of the donations she got. And over and over, no one
has been stepping down over this in Wisconsin.
>> You know, I'm curious, Anya, the both parties, we
said gave money to the candidates. Democrats gave
more. But in the past, they've given a lot more.
What can we read into the fact that they're deciding
to not deem this the election of all elections
and pouring all resources into it the way that they
did in the Protasiewicz race or the Crawford race?
>> Yeah. I mean, we are used to kind of hearing
that level of language around both the Supreme
Court elections and then also various national
elections. most important of our lives.
>> Exactly. But this one, November is actually
probably the most important of our lives. And maybe the
Democrats want to kind of keep that messaging for the
midterms. And so kind of stepping back and maybe
they're really confident about their contender this
time. The stakes are not as high. Liberals will hold a
majority no matter who wins. And so why not kind of keep
those resources in the bank for November?
>> Zac, you described it as kind of they're making a
bet. Essentially. >> They're hedging their
bet that they don't have to invest any more to secure
this win. I think you pointed out perfectly that
even if they lose the hedge on that bet, somehow they
still maintain the majority. But the incentives aren't
as high. And seeing the incumbent Republicans or
conservatives leave this race repeatedly shows they
don't believe the same either.
>> Sure. Well, that's all the time we have for today.
Thanks for joining us for this week's Inside
Wisconsin Politics. Be sure to follow us on PBS
Wisconsin. Org npr.org, YouTube or wherever you get
your podcasts.