Podcasts

Announcer:
The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production. You’re watching “Here & Now” 2024 election coverage.

Frederica Freyberg:
Versions of remedial legislative district maps are in the hands of the court, but now a Democratic group wants the congressional map changed as well. And record cold temperatures outside create devastating conditions for the unhoused.
I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” we take a close look at the proposed voting maps submitted to the state Supreme Court and how the maps will and won’t matter come November. The frigid temperatures are being felt by all, but most acutely by those without shelter. Then, a look at a bipartisan bill to expand electric vehicle chargers. And finally, how Wisconsin honored Dr. King and how his legacy lives on. It’s “Here & Now” for January 19.

Announcer:
Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:
An anticipated expert analysis of new voting maps submitted to the Wisconsin Supreme Court is out. Research fellow at the Lubar Center for Public Policy at the Marquette Law School, John Johnson, joins us with his take. Thanks very much for being here.

John Johnson:
My pleasure.

Frederica Freyberg:
You analyzed the maps with the criteria set forth by the Supreme Court. Overall, of all the maps submitted by the Legislature, the governor, the law firms and others, which comports the most in your analysis?

John Johnson:
There’s not a clear winner across all the criteria. Some do better on some metrics than others.

Frederica Freyberg:
And do you think the court will accept any of these submitted maps?

John Johnson:
I’m not sure. I think most or all of them meet the minimum constitutional requirements: contiguity, equal populations, those kinds of things. But the court has to make judgment calls about which of these criteria it values most.

Frederica Freyberg:
And then it is true, am I correct, that they could decide, you know, none of them really are up to muster so we’re going to send this to these map-maker consultants. Is that the next step if it goes that way?

John Johnson:
I think that’s right. The opinion that the court released is not as clear as I would like it to be about the process that we’ll follow here, but I think that’s right, and these consultants they’ve hired have done that kind of work for other states.

Frederica Freyberg:
So what was the most important criteria under consideration and how did the maps stack up on that?

John Johnson:
Well, I think the most important criteria is equal population. That’s the whole point we do redistricting. All of the plans have a population deviation of less than 2%, so I could imagine the justices simply deciding that all of them were equally good on that metric. On the other hand, some of the plans have a deviation closer to 1% and some closer to 2. Lower is better on this metric. So we could also imagine the justices saying, well, we really prefer a plan to have the least population deviation, the most equal populations possible. The other, you know, sort of pass-fail is contiguity, which these plans all set out to achieve.

Frederica Freyberg:
So you commented that the Republican Legislature’s map stuck to the least change from the last least changed maps. How so?

John Johnson:
That’s right. So as you’ll recall, the reason the old maps were thrown out was because of many of the districts lacking contiguity, and the Legislative Republicans submitted a map where they essentially just made the fewest changes possible to resolve those contiguity issues. Sort of the minimal changes needed to meet the new constitutional requirements the court laid out. That ended up resulting in a lot of municipal and board splits, actually, because the reason why those old districts were not contiguous is because the municipalities themselves were not contiguous.

Frederica Freyberg:
So you described the Republicans as deliberately not playing ball with what the court requested. Is that akin to kind of thumbing their nose at the process?

John Johnson:
I’ll leave that to the listener to decide, but I think it’s clear that the Legislature was annoyed with what the court did and chose not to change the partisan impact of their map really at all, which is something that the court said they would explicitly consider.

Frederica Freyberg:
So UW Professor Barry Burden told us he thinks the number one effect will be shaking up incumbents, whereby new maps could put them in the same district. What are your observations about the number of proposed districts with multiple incumbents?

John Johnson:
So as far as I’m able to tell, the Legislative Republicans’ map wouldn’t place any incumbents from either party in the same district consistent with that least change approach we were talking about. All the other plans would do that, and particularly a lot of Republican incumbents would be placed in the same district. So as I’ve looked at this, I believe the plans submitted by the right petitioners would create 17 districts with no incumbents and then the plan submitted by Law Forward and the Senate Democrats would create 19 districts with no incumbents and then the plans submitted by the conservative law firm WILL would create 18 districts with no incumbents. And so if you’re drawing these districts with no incumbents, that means incumbents are being paired together elsewhere.

Frederica Freyberg:
Hmm. Well, also this week, a lawsuit was filed over maps for Wisconsin’s congressional districts. Are they flawed under the court’s new criteria?

John Johnson:
Not the contiguity issue. My understanding, I haven’t read the filing, but from the reporting I’ve read, that those lawyers are arguing that the least change approach is constitutionally flawed and asking the court to reject the old congressional map on those grounds.

Frederica Freyberg:
Lots of redistricting all over the place potentially. John Johnson, thanks very much.

John Johnson:
My pleasure.

Frederica Freyberg:
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos has often said it’s not the maps that result in out-sized Republican majorities in the Legislature; it’s that they have better candidates. Senior political reporter, Zac Schultz, is here now with additional factors that impact elections. Hi, Zac.

Zac Schultz:
Hello, Frederica.

Frederica Freyberg:
So is it true that Republicans have better candidates and messaging and organizing?

Zac Schultz:
Well, when Robin Vos says that, what he’s referring to is, in 2018, with Tammy Baldwin’s U.S. Senate run, in 2022 with Governor Evers’ re-election, they each won at the top of the ticket a number of Assembly districts. Enough that the Democrats would have had the majority in the Assembly if all of their down-ballot Democrats have won their races and he says that proves that down-ballot Republicans win on their messaging. There’s also the fact that in Wisconsin split ticket voters exist and they do separate out their feelings on who should be a U.S. senator or a governor and who should run for Assembly. There is truth in what he’s saying but a different district makeup will affect that as well.

Frederica Freyberg:
So as to the question of incumbents landing in the same district with new maps, how big of a deal is that?

Zac Schultz:
Well, that happens every 10 years during redistricting anyway. In the past, the Legislature has tried to avoid that because it’s their incumbents. Republicans in 2011 under Scott Walker tried to minimize the number of incumbents that were affected by that and the same thing the last round. It’s not unusual and Wisconsin’s laws on who can run in what district are very loose. So residence requirements don’t limit an incumbent who is now just outside their new border to run over here, get an apartment, move in after they win. We’ve got cases where people have actually owned homes in other districts and taken property tax credits on those homes but still represented somewhere else. There really isn’t any enforcement mechanism so I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. It’s something to talk about, however in terms of if people don’t want to move, getting paired up in the same district is an issue if one wants to retire or they’re going to run against each other in a primary.

Frederica Freyberg:
So what are other implications of the new maps in terms of governing? Is it most conceivable iterations that there isn’t — that most of these maps, there’d still be a Republican advantage?

Zac Schultz:
Well, that’s the geographic nature of the state. The distribution of Democratic voters is concentrated in the cities and in urban areas and Republicans are a little more spread out at the moment. That doesn’t mean you can’t draw Democratic districts in urban areas or by taking out chunks of cities. That’s been done and proven these maps are possible, but the average mathematicians from the UW have told us in the past will slightly favor Republicans, but that doesn’t talk about swing elections, wave elections and candidate quality, as Robin Vos has talked about.

Frederica Freyberg:
So you suggested the Republican maps are designed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court but experts say that it is highly unlikely it would go there.

Zac Schultz:
Well, this is the Republicans’ Hail Mary. They want to keep all of their options open so if the U.S. Supreme Court does weigh in and they say, alright, well if the only thing that was wrong was the noncontiguous part of the district, the Assembly Republican map fixes that problem without changing anything and keeps a majority in favor of Republicans and they’re hoping that is the outcome that comes out of the U.S. Supreme Court, if it does get there.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right. Zac, thanks very much.

Zac Schultz:
Thanks, Fred.

Frederica Freyberg:
In Milwaukee this week, three adult men died in the bitter cold. Two found dead outside and one in their car. Being without shelter in these conditions is unimaginable for most of us. While strides were made to help people during the pandemic using federal funds, that money is now drying up and homelessness is once again on the rise in Wisconsin. At the same time, there are proposals in the Legislature that include cracking down on where people can camp outside to live. Latest numbers from this time last year show nearly 5,000 people counted among the unhoused, including nearly 500 with no shelter at all. The highest number since 2012, according to the state Department of Administration, which says the problem is only growing. Agencies across the state are working to help, including the Wisconsin Balance of State Continuum of Care. Its director, Carrie Poser, joins us now. Thanks very much for being here.

Carrie Poser:
Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
What are the biggest drivers of increasing homelessness in Wisconsin right now?

Carrie Poser:
I would say that there’s two kind of equal drivers: one, the lack of available housing options for people. Because of that, it stalls out the system. People can’t move from shelter to permanent housing. People can’t get access into a spot in the shelter so people remain unsheltered, bouncing around. Sometimes even staying in dangerous situations. At the same time, there’s not enough mental health and substance use treatment options for those that want and need it. So there are more people suffering and not enough services to meet those increasingly complex needs.

Frederica Freyberg:
Weren’t federal funds able to help deliver more permanent solutions by way of shelters or low-income housing?

Carrie Poser:
So during the pandemic, there was an influx of COVID funds for things like shelter, funding to build housing and funds for eviction prevention. There was not more funding made available for rent assistance in case management for those people with the highest needs, the most vulnerable population.

Frederica Freyberg:
So we often think of homelessness as a particularly urban problem, but is it?

Carrie Poser:
No. Homelessness exists in every county within Wisconsin. So the 69 counties that are represented by the Balance of State organization make up over 60% of the people counted during the point in time. That includes people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Rural communities often have less resource options than urban, so less services, less housing, less agencies available. And although urban have more of those options, they don’t have enough to meet their current needs.

Frederica Freyberg:
So you just spoke to something called point in time. That is a count of people who are experiencing homelessness and that comes up every January and July. Is that right? So there’s one coming up soon?

Carrie Poser:
Next week, yeah. It’s the fourth Wednesday overnight in January and July.

Frederica Freyberg:
And is the expectation again that these numbers will rise above last year’s?

Carrie Poser:
Correct. Unfortunately, in 2023, so in January’s count, there were 268 people sleeping outside in the 69 counties I cover. Looking at somewhere, you know, north of 2,000 people — 2,000 households and almost 3,000 people that were in shelters, unsheltered or in transitional facilities. And that number continues to grow.

Frederica Freyberg:
So I know that the Wisconsin Emergency Rental Assistance Program ended in 2023 and with it, more than $250 million that was helping more than 66,000 households. Evictions, therefore, are now up. What does this spell?

Carrie Poser:
Certainly. So that program that you referenced was something that we call an eviction prevention program. It was specifically designed to stop evictions from happening to help people stay in their homes. Unfortunately, it’s not necessarily a homeless prevention program. Not all people or households that are evicted end up homeless. So unfortunately, without investing funds in homeless prevention, looking upstream and targeting those folks that are at the greatest risk of becoming homeless, not only are you going to see evictions, but you’re also going to see an increase in homelessness.

Frederica Freyberg:
Meanwhile, the Legislature is considering a bill that would criminalize camping on public property not sanctioned by the state. What is your reaction to that measure going through the Legislature right now?

Carrie Poser:
Yeah. So the Cicero Institute is a leading proponent of this proposal and it’s not just happening in Wisconsin. It’s coming up in states all across the country. Unfortunately, it perpetuates a false and often harmful narrative as to the causes of homelessness along with the potential solutions. Rounding people up and putting them in a place established by a city or a state and making it a crime to be anywhere else does not end homelessness. Oftentimes it’s counterproductive, it’s expensive, it’s harmful and it’s dehumanizing. If the purpose of those bills is to address, is to truly address the unsheltered homeless uptick in this state, then we need investment in a variety of different things, including crisis housing, shelters, outreach, engagement, landlord incentives to get landlords to agree to work with our programs and the people we’re trying to serve, but rounding people up isn’t the answer.

Frederica Freyberg:
With about half a minute left, what do you know about the appetite for more investments of the kind that you just mentioned?

Carrie Poser:
You know, that’s a good question. Under the Walker administration, there were several proposals to increase funding for diversion and outreach and other items within the homeless crisis response system and, unfortunately, even under the lieutenant governor’s leadership at that time, they still stalled out in the Legislature. I know that Governor Evers is interested in addressing and making some good investments in homelessness. We just need the Legislature to come along board.

Frederica Freyberg:
Carrie Poser, thanks very much. Thanks for your work.

Carrie Poser:
Thank you so much for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
The state Senate this week passed two bills designed to jump-start the construction of electric vehicle charging stations across the state by tapping into nearly $80 million in federal funds. The measures now go to the Assembly. A change in law is required to allow gas stations like Kwik Trip or other businesses to charge three cents per kilowatt hour to charge up because current law only allows public utilities to charge for electricity. Environmental groups advocate for more EV charging stations. We get Clean Wisconsin’s take on a potential law change clearing the way with Chelsea Chandler. Thanks very much for being here.

Chelsea Chandler:
Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
So what is your reaction to these bills that passed in the Senate and are on their way to the Assembly.

Chelsea Chandler:
These bills are really important for unlocking $78 million in federal funding made possible by the Biden administration’s infrastructure law as part of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program. But there are a couple of requirements in that program that Wisconsin state law is not meeting right now. So what these bills do are they’re going to bring us into alignment with those requirements so we can access those critical funds and bring more electric vehicle charging into the state. Fundamentally, the issue is about how people pay to charge their vehicles in Wisconsin. Right now, Wisconsin is one of only two states in the country that is having people pay by the amount of time that they’re charging their vehicles instead of the amount of energy that they’re using in kilowatt hours. So it’s a little bit funny, really. If you’re charging your gas car at the pump, you wouldn’t pay for the amount of time you’re sitting there. You’d expect to pay for the number of gallons that you’re putting into your vehicle. So this is the same thing. It would kind of make it more fair, so if the pump is a little slower or your electric vehicle is charging a little slower, you’re still paying for the amount of energy that you’re using. And the reason we have it set up that way right now is it’s kind of a work-around because, as you said, right now Wisconsin sees anyone who is providing electricity as being an electric utility and that’s really not the intent here. The intent is just for a company to be able to provide a service to car owners who want to power their vehicles.

Frederica Freyberg:
How sorely are these charging stations needed around Wisconsin?

Chelsea Chandler:
We really need more electric vehicle charging infrastructure. I think that’s the biggest barrier to having more widespread adoption of electric cars in Wisconsin. People need to be able to travel and commute with confidence that they can, you know, repower their vehicle as easily ideally as you can fill it up at a pump and we really need more electric cars in Wisconsin for a few reasons. Really, because there’s benefits to the climate, there’s benefits when it comes to air pollution and displacing some of those emissions out of the tailpipe and then there’s really a lot of economic opportunities to having more electric cars in Wisconsin could unlock. I know coincidentally today, U.S. Energy Secretary Grant Holm and U.S. Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su were visiting Wauwatosa, Wisconsin to talk all about electric vehicle charging infrastructure, kind of made-in-America opportunities for Wisconsin, and so basically that is an opportunity Wisconsin companies like Ingeteam based in Milwaukee, they’re expanding their production of EV chargers, so they see that as an opportunity. And then there’s the places that will be hosting the EV charging, places like Kwik Trip who were very active and supportive throughout the process of advancing these bills because they want to be able to offer services to more customers who can come charge their vehicles and then stop and get a cup of coffee or a bite to eat.

Frederica Freyberg:
I was going to ask about that idea that businesses like Kwik Trip are in favor, because you’d think that EV chargers might compete with their gasoline sales.

Chelsea Chandler:
I think they see it as part of the future. It’s a more diverse portfolio so more people are switching to electric cars so might as well be a part of that. Again, they can make money by people coming into the store and getting some food. I know that’s what I do when I’m charging my car. It’s nice to be able — to be somewhere where I can stop, have the kids get a bathroom break, get a bite to eat and then be on my way.

Frederica Freyberg:
Is the goal to have these charging stations every 50 miles, as is federal guidance, and if so, how long would it take for Wisconsin to get there?

Chelsea Chandler:
So there’s been pretty elaborate planning process to comply with this National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program. Wisconsin has a Wisconsin Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Plan that was approved in 2022, and so they looked at all of the major corridors making sure that they get that coverage at least every 50 miles so we can make it convenient for people who are traveling across the state and have that confidence that they can recharge. So the bills have passed the Senate this week. The next step is to pass the Assembly and then the governor would sign into law and then the Department of Transportation already has a request for proposals out for people who want to build these charging stations. So that is open until April 1st. So basically, as long as we can get these bills passed and kind of make sure we’re adhering to the federal requirements, we could, as I understand, have money out the door starting in April.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right. Chelsea Chandler, thanks very much.

Chelsea Chandler:
Thank you so much.

Frederica Freyberg:
Also at the Capitol this week, hundreds gathered to commemorate the life and lessons of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. with a keynote address from Reverend Dr. Marcus Allen, Sr.

Marcus Allen:
And let me commend the state of Wisconsin for being one of the first to honor this giant of a man, the liberator of our people, the drum major for justice, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and has continued to honor this hero for 43 years no matter who has been the governor of this state.

Frederica Freyberg:
Dr. Allen’s speech impressed upon the dangers of apathy when it comes to racial injustice in education, healthcare, fair housing, wealth inequality and Black history. And he highlighted the work of Dr. Alex Gee, who created a classroom to teach the broader community that Black history is American history. Gee founded the program, Justified Anger: Black History for A New Day. “Here & Now” special projects journalist, Murv Seymour, spoke with Alex Gee about the last decade of this work.

Murv Seymour:
Ten years is not enough time to fix all of our problems in the Black community, but it’s enough time to move the needle. How much has the needle moved since you began this effort?

Alex Gee:
The issue with the Black community is not the Black community. The issue with the Black community is systemic racism. It’s the structures that are in place and people that are leading them and benefiting from them. That’s got to be changed. That’s got to be acknowledged. That’s got to be held accountable if we’re going to really see true thriving. So when people ask me, “Are things better?” I want to ask them, well, how have you changed? How have your friendships changed? How has your office changed? Your board changed? Your leaders changed? That’s the true indication of this. I’m not fixing Black people so that white people can feel more comfortable. By addressing the issues of Black people, I’m helping this community to become really what it can be, who it really can be, and the place where everyone can thrive. But until then, I’ll train would-be white allies to understand the benefit of work that they do in their communities to help them dismantle these impediments to Black wellness and Black health. When that begins to happen on a large scale, we will see huge change. So the white community is not waiting for us. We’re waiting for the white community.

Murv Seymour:
The effort in Justified Anger is not just to educate about Black history, it’s also about letting white residents learn about themselves.

Alex Gee:
Oh, oh, definitely. Because learning about Black history won’t change anything. Learning about themselves will change everything.

Murv Seymour:
What do they learn?

Alex Gee:
They learn what’s really meant by the term white privilege, that that’s not just a moniker. That’s it’s not just thrown off on people. Because you’re given the option to not only to be white, which is to be American, but to not be Black. So that no matter what they, the country, put on you as a white person, you could always say, at least I’m not Black, and so then that completely polarized the country between Black and white or white and other. And when people learn that they realize that once you dichotomize people that way, once you polarize them that way, you can put them at odds around anything. Separate them how they live and they never come together so that we never work together. We don’t create solutions together without even realizing it, we’ve been made to be the enemies of each other and fearful of each other.

Murv Seymour:
How does the program work?

Alex Gee:
I’ve always thought if people understood how we got to where we are in terms of race relations, let’s just talk about the way the country was built. Let’s look at our history at a nonpolitical, academic perspective. I felt that people, non-Black people would say, wow, I didn’t know that. Really. Hmm. I understand things a lot differently now. Now I know how strategic we must be in dismantling this if people were very strategic in mantling this and it’s been a very, very powerful tool for helping people to understand how we arrived at this place of a racialized America.

Frederica Freyberg:
For more on this and other issues facing Wisconsin, visit our website at PBSwisconsin.org and then click on the news tab. That’s our program for tonight. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a good weekend.

Announcer:
Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.