Inside Wisconsin Politics

Flock cameras, election administration and Great Lakes names

Shawn Johnson:
Sometimes candidates choose their issues, sometimes the issues choose them. We look at a few items in the news this week, from Flock cameras to election integrity to the name of a Great Lake. This is Inside Wisconsin Politics. I’m Shawn Johnson, here with my colleagues Anya van Wagtendonk, Zac Schultz and Rich Kremer in Eau Claire. Hey, everyone. So, Flock camera,. these cameras run by a private company that are used by law enforcement for vehicle surveillance, have been one of those slowly building issues in the U.S. I got to say, I was not terribly aware of them until about April. It seems like they have entered our politics here, though, as we enter September. Zac, where do they fit when it comes to this year’s elections?

Zac Schultz:
They are the new issue, and it feels like they’re a build out from the data center argument this idea of AI surveillance state, how in control are we of our own destiny? And these really interesting political topics that don’t fit into the typical partisan narrative, so they not only do we have to figure out how do people think about them, but the candidates have to figure out where do we think about these issues, because they don’t fit into the usual pockets where they can say, this is a Republican issue, this is a Democrat issue. They fall across all of them. And the idea that license plate readers, which is essentially what these cameras are, have been around for a long time. Wisconsin doesn’t allow them, but many other states do red light cameras. People have argued about whether those are fair or not. You can get a ticket in the mail if you’ve driven through Illinois and had to pay a toll and worried about the toll camera catching you or your license plate having something on it. Those are old issues. But the idea now that some data center can just collect all that and automatically track you without any idea that it’s happening, or people can use it for nefarious purposes, or outside of a subpoena, is bringing it into legal territory. It builds off these questions about how involved should our government be when it comes to these, and where should our politicians stand? And right now, what we’re seeing is the gubernatorial candidate saying: I need to think real quick where I want to be on this, because this could be the next thing to bite me in the butt in a few weeks if I don’t have a strong position that falls in line with where my voters are and independent voters.

Shawn Johnson:
So Anya, where are our candidates on these? And what kind of political bedfellows are we seeing here?

Anya van Wagtendonk:
Yeah, I mean, as Zac said, it doesn’t fall into these kind of clear political narratives. And so we are seeing kind of both candidates, much like the data center issue, kind of use this to go after one another. So in particular, Tom Tiffany this week has been trying to call David Crowley “Big Brother David Crowley.” So first he was “Data Center David Crowley,” now he’s “Big Brother,” because of the ways in which Flock was used in Milwaukee County. For his part, David Crowley is now trying to reduce the use of them in Milwaukee County. There’s been changes to the policy in Milwaukee city as well. And so both candidates are really trying to kind of leverage people’s feelings on both the right and the left, sort of against this tool, for their own political aims.

Shawn Johnson:
And Rich, it strikes me that there is not a really clean line of where conservatives stand on this. There’s not a Republican position when it comes to Flock cameras. What’s the sort of spectrum of where they stand on this?

Rich Kremer:
Yeah, it is surprising because you know typically you think of the GOP as lockstep with law enforcement. And law enforcement has been using this technology for homicide investigations, all sorts of things, but we’ve also seen stories, including two in Milwaukee, situations where officers are using it for personal reasons or just not for what it’s intended unauthorized use. And that is what is, part of what’s getting people really upset. So on the Republican side, it seems like you’ve got the more libertarian people who just don’t like this idea of surveillance at all. You’ve got some in the Republican Party that are saying, look, this is just another tool, it’s been around for a long time. They don’t understand why it’s a big deal right now. And then you’ve got Tom Tiffany, who’s trying to thread that needle. As Anya mentioned, he’s been attacking David Crowley, claiming that Crowley is all about these things and is a big supporter of them. Crowley has said they are an important tool, but he said, ” unchecked surveillance isn’t the answer.” So that speaks to the limits that the county is putting in place now. And with regards to surveillance, Tiffany’s position is kind of interesting. He says he would block state funds going towards shared revenue to local governments. He would essentially say this money can’t be used to purchase these types of cameras or these systems until we have a committee task force take a look at it. And that’s interesting because in Congress, Tiffany has voted to restore or to continue the FISA surveillance, which is essentially warrantless mass surveillance of cell phone conversations, text messages, electronic communications. And that, back in its days in the early 2000s, was a very big political issue that’s kind of died down somewhat in more recent years.

Shawn Johnson:
So we could imagine a different world, right Rich, where this issue comes up and Tom Tiffany, who’s trying to run as this “tough on crime” candidate and wants to say let’s not be Milwaukee since he’s running against the Milwaukee candidate you could definitely imagine a world where he’s saying: We need to give police every tool that they want to fight crime. Has there been any hint of that in what Tom Tiffany’s saying?

Rich Kremer:
Well, he’s essentially not saying he’s going to take this tool away, but he wants to put more safeguards in place. Just in my social media stream, last night I saw two posts back to back on Twitter, and one was Tiffany calling David Crowley “Big Brother Crowley” or you know, “Flock Camera Crowley.” And the next post was someone with Tiffany’s campaign talking about a third party ad highlighting the fights and the melee we saw at the State Fair and talking about how Crowley is “soft on crime.” And it just struck me as kind of ironic, because you’re saying he’s too supportive of this technology that law enforcement uses but also soft on crime so which is it?

Shawn Johnson:
Is there something, Zac, about Wisconsin’s politics being sort of a little libertarian that makes this issue different than in other states? I mean, I think about you kind of referenced it there but there has been a push for years to have red light cameras here, and that has been defeated in the Legislature every time. There was a time in the more distant past when there was resistance to giving police the ability to write tickets for not wearing a seatbelt here. Is Wisconsin kind of a unique place when it comes to issues like Flock?

Zac Schultz:
Potentially is, and there’s a history that goes about your individual liberties. Remember the motorcycle helmet issue in Wisconsin, being the home of Harley Davidson, you didn’t have to wear a helmet in Wisconsin for a long time. And there were debates about whether it was OK to ban the use of cell phones in cars, and there was already laws that covered that. All these things that we’ve covered at the Capitol over the years, and there is this mentality that we don’t go too far, or wait to see where other states go first and then figure out if it makes sense for Wisconsin. And there’s a lot of independents that just don’t like the idea of being watched or being followed. And a lot of these came from like the sci-fi movies that we watched as kids that are now in reality, and it’s scary for some people, because we’ve been trained for decades that when these things happen, it’s the bad times and they’re happening now. So people are hearing it from both the left and the right that: Hey, this isn’t what I signed up for. Even if it is a tool that has helped law enforcement track down people that have committed crimes, the question is, does it go too far? And in this era of ICE bursting into cities, the question of whether police are going to come through your door there’s been left and right debates over warrantless breaking into apartments to arrest people then they got the wrong door, and all sorts of things that go beyond this, where people are just scared of: Hey, what if they get it wrong, I don’t trust AI, they can’t even repeat my answer into my phone correctly, how are they going to get this right when it comes to arresting someone?

Shawn Johnson:
Anya, do we have any evidence that this is going to be an issue that moves people in November? Are people going to be voting on Flock?

Anya van Wagtendonk:
I don’t know if in the same way that the data center issue is kind of a rich text of an issue that a lot of people can read many different sort of problems or concerns into. Flock seems a little bit narrower. And so I think it’ll be up to the candidates to really try to connect concerns with Flock to other things in order to drive that. So, one of the arguments we’ve seen in other states, because Wisconsin is not the only state kind of grappling with this right now, is that these contracts are very expensive. And so at a time that a lot of communities are really struggling, and certainly a lot of people are really struggling financially, and then your town maybe can’t pave your potholes but has a $10 million contract that is a connection that I think will register with voters. I’m not sure if this issue in and of itself just the kind of AI and surveillance aspect will necessarily sway voters. But as we always say, you only need to sway a few in Wisconsin to win an election.

Shawn Johnson:
Sure. I do feel like something like this, I have to take a step back sometimes, because you know we’re journalists, we see a new issue out there, we don’t know how people are going to respond. So exciting, you know, we feel like this must be the next big thing. Marquette had that poll last week asking people about their most important issues 5% said data centers, and it was like around 40% or so plus that said the cost of living. So, I think the old issues maybe still carry a little bit more weight. We did get some other news this week that feels a little more familiar. There’s an investigation, CNN reported, being launched by the Department of Homeland Security into noncitizen voter fraud in nine states, including Wisconsin. Rich, tell us about that.

Rich Kremer:
Yeah. So this comes from an internal memo from the federal government that CNN obtained. It listed the states, of course Wisconsin also Georgia and Pennsylvania, those two caught my attention as well but a number of states included. So this is essentially plans for a big investigation into noncitizen voting, fraudulent voting ahead of the election. And traditionally you know, this is what CNN reported historically, the Department of Justice doesn’t launch these sorts of big announcements right before an election, just as a matter of, kind of, it’s not a formal policy, but just best practice. Department of Homeland Security doesn’t have to follow that, and it’s got its own investigative unit that is going to be doing this work. So, but the backdrop here is that President Donald Trump has been making these broad claims without any evidence that there was massive voter fraud in 2020, and that was why he lost the election to President Joe Biden. And since then, more recently, we see the Wisconsin, I mean, the U.S. Department of Justice is suing Wisconsin to force us, force the state to turn over sensitive voter registration documents. And they’re saying: Well, there could be fraud, we need to check, and we’re not sure Wisconsin is checking. That’s the gist of the argument. And the DOJ has sued dozens of other states as well. They haven’t won a single case. And also the U.S. Postal Service has finalized a policy that would essentially tell its people to not send absentee ballots to people who aren’t on these federal lists. That is held up in court right now, but it all serves as kind of this backdrop of what’s happening with regard to this latest investigation news reported by CNN.

Shawn Johnson:
And Anya, I think we’ve gotten kind of used to hearing about these types of investigations now, even if they don’t go anywhere. Is there anything particularly unusual about this one, though, in terms of who’s leading it?

Anya van Wagtendonk:
Yeah. I mean, we’ve certainly, as Rich said, there has been this kind of steady drumbeat since 2020. It’s the water that we swim in, is this kind of allegations of election fraud. I think at this point in my sleep, I could type out the list of sort of nonpartisan and partisan investigations that all showed there was no election fraud, but that has not diminished the claims coming from the Trump administration. What makes this so different is that this is DHS. This is like an arm of DHS that normally goes after human traffickers, drug smuggling, this kind of thing, and they are looking into noncitizen voting, which is essentially a thing that does not happen. It is against state law. It’s against federal law. But we’ve been hearing sort of claims around the possibility of this for a long time. Wisconsin has looked to pass a constitutional amendment about this, but now using this kind of quite militarized, quite intensive arm of the government to go after it. First of all, they don’t sort of have to follow DOJ guidance around what you can do around an election. And I’ll note, we’re less than two months out from our election. DOJ has guidance that says don’t do really intense investigative things unless you absolutely have to this close to an election because it can chill voting, et cetera. DHS doesn’t have to follow any of that. And then meanwhile, as they’ve been ramping up this action, they’ve been saying, at one point they said that they found 250,000 noncitizens who are registered to vote in four states. And then upon further investigation, they’ve released 180 ID numbers tied to people. They won’t give any more information. So they’re kind of just, at the very least, significantly muddying the waters with a huge amount of resources from the federal government, again, going into these critical midterm elections.

Shawn Johnson:
Zac, I don’t feel like there’s been a November election that goes by when there isn’t some election issue that is, you know, tied up in the courts or fought over in the courts or in the court of public opinion. Is this one the big one in the year 2026? Or will we forget about this in a few months?

Zac Schultz:
Well, in a few months, it’ll still be being brought up, because no matter what happens afterwards, someone’s going to cry foul. The question is, of all the things that Rich listed off and there’s a lot of different avenues in which the Trump administration is clearly pursuing to push their narrative of false voting or fraud, which, as we must repeat every time, there is no evidence it has ever existed or does exist. It does not change the outcome of any elections anywhere, but that doesn’t stop them from putting it out into the public consciousness. And there’s these is it the Postal Service potentially not delivering ballots? Well, obviously, that would have a tremendous impact on voting in Wisconsin. That one seems like the courts are going to hold it up. It seems less likely to come to fruition. We’ve heard rumors for more than a year that Trump’s going to send ICE in around the polls to try and scare voters. It was kind of hand-waved away by a lot of Republicans saying: No, of course that wouldn’t happen, this is America, that’s just. People have not wanted to look too deeply into what could happen, because it’s never happened in American history before. So there are legitimate fears that there could be law enforcement there at certain poll sites in certain swing states and we can all guess which ones they are that might influence the outcome of election. The question is, will it actually happen? And then who will be the one crying foul afterwards about what that actually means in deterring voters, literally keeping voters from coming away? But these kind of stories do come up every single cycle. The question is, will we see people with guns outside polls that represent the federal government, that scare away voters?

Shawn Johnson:
That’s a big question. Turning to something completely different, and something I definitely did not see coming as we enter this, you know, home stretch of the election. The president renamed a Great Lake, according to an executive order, from Lake Ontario to Lake America. Anya, when that happens, people react to it. Candidates have to react to it. It’s expected. What are our candidates saying about the president doing this?

Anya van Wagtendonk:
Well, most interestingly is Tom Tiffany, again, a close ally of President Trump, and he essentially said: I don’t know that I like this. He sort of turned it into a joke. He said: Unless we’re changing Lake Michigan to Lake Wisconsin, otherwise, I don’t think this is a good idea. And so that allows him to put a little bit of air between himself and President Trump, but on an issue that is not super from a policy standpoint, not necessarily a super impactful decision. What it is, is kind of one of these more ostentatious decisions that Trump often likes to make, maybe a distracting kind of moment during a time like this. So it allows Tiffany to put that air between them, but not necessarily on an issue that is very consequential.

Shawn Johnson:
And David Crowley says: Oh, come on, this is the one that you picked to differentiate with the president on. And Zac, just real quick as we wrap up here, any sense that voters will take note of this in November?

Zac Schultz:
I can’t imagine this being the deciding issue for someone in an election, but I’m sure there’s one person out of 3 million voters that will say: This is what matters to me most and they’re probably a sailor.

Shawn Johnson:
Going after that sailor vote, a crucial demographic in Wisconsin. That’s all the time we have for today. This has been Inside Wisconsin Politics. Be sure to follow us on pbswisconsin.org, wpr.org, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.