Frederica Freyberg:
In addition to the tax cut proposal and a bill banning abortions after 14 weeks, legislative Republicans passed a new redistricting plan, maps that mirror the one submitted by Governor Evers with changes to protect incumbents. Under the Evers map, Republicans would have a 53-46 majority in the Assembly and a 17-16 edge in the Senate but Vos said under those maps, 30 Republicans would be paired against one another compared with just two Democrats.

Robin Vos:
Under the map that we’re voting on today, with the small tweaks for five members, the governor is getting 99% of what he asked for. 99%. And actually the map that we’re voting on today disenfranchises fewer people than the governor’s map because we reunite a couple of the legislators with their communities and undo the most egregious political gerrymanders in this map.

Frederica Freyberg:
UW-La Crosse political science professor Anthony Chergosky was at the Capitol as all of this was unfolding. He joins us now for his take. Professor, thanks a lot for being here.

Anthony Chergosky:
Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:
So as we’ve said, since we last talked, both the Senate and the Assembly passed this new redistricting proposal that mirrors Governor Evers’ maps with what they call minuscule changes to protect some of the incumbents in the same districts. What do you make of the Republicans move here?

Anthony Chergosky:
Well, I think it’s pretty significant changes when the maps are being adjusted to protect incumbents. Part of this is about self-preservation. If two incumbents are running against one another, then only one incumbent can win and that means that a substantial number of incumbents could be left out of a job after the 2024 election cycle is completed. So I think the ability to remain in office is certainly top of mind for legislators. In addition, the incumbency advantage still matters. The incumbency advantage is not what it used to be, but still, incumbents do have certain advantages in terms of fundraising, in terms of name recognition, in terms of the connections and the incredibility they’ve built with voters. So the more incumbents are on the ballot for Republicans, the better the party as a whole could do. I’m not surprised that Republican leaders want to protect their incumbents and ensure that as many of their incumbents as possible can be on the November ballot.

Frederica Freyberg:
But meanwhile, Evers says he will almost certainly veto the latest Republican proposal and that had to be expected on the part of the Legislative Republican leaders. So kind of why go through that exercise?

Anthony Chergosky:
I think for Evers, he understands that these changes are indeed pretty substantial. Allowing more incumbents to be able to run for office in November of 2024 could have significant effects on the election outcomes. Meanwhile, Republicans understand that as well. They want to protect their incumbents. They know that the more incumbents for their party that can be on the ballot, the better their party is likely to do. Think about this. If Republicans don’t have many incumbents who are able to run in November 2024 due to new maps, then it’s going to take a lot of work for candidate recruitment. It’s going to take a lot of fundraising effort. It’s going to take a lot of work to build name recognition for a new batch of candidates. Republicans undoubtedly want incumbents to be able to run in November 2024. Of course, certain incumbents will not be able to run, but the more incumbents Republicans can have on the ballot, the better for them.

Frederica Freyberg:
So Speaker Vos described this as minuscule changes and 99% of what the governor wanted in his maps thinking perhaps he would sign them. Is their proposal a hedge against the Supreme Court choosing a map that’s even more advantageous to Democrats or one of its own, which is kind of unknown at this point?

Anthony Chergosky:
You’re right. Right now, I think ‘unknown’ is the key word. We’re dealing with a period of uncertainty regarding the ongoing court challenge to the maps because we don’t know how the consultants hired by the Wisconsin State Supreme Court are going to come down on the maps that have been proposed. The consultants could pick one of the maps. They could draw their own maps. Right now there’s a lot of uncertainty hanging over the Capitol when we think about the legislative district maps for November 2024 and uncertainty makes politicians nervous. By drawing the maps themselves, they can bring some certainty back into the equation, but if this continues to work its way through the courts, the name of the game is going to be uncertainty at least until the Wisconsin State Supreme Court settles on a map and until all legal challenges have been exhausted.

Frederica Freyberg:
Briefly, all of this was happening kind of at the same time that Governor Evers was in the spotlight for his State of the State address. One of the things that Governor Evers did not discuss there was tax cuts at the same time that the Republicans came out with this tax cut proposal that would seem to be more amenable to what the governor might want. Why try to work with him on that now, or is that what’s happening?

Anthony Chergosky:
Republicans want things to run on in November of 2024. They need things to put on their campaign brochures. They need things to mention when they’re knocking on doors. So Republicans are looking to rack up some achievements and they might be able to meet the governor halfway on taxes. We’ll have to see how that pans out. The governor did not mention taxes in his State of the State but I think compromise on that issue is possible. Compromises on other issues like abortion, not so possible.

Frederica Freyberg:
That’s for sure. Professor Anthony Chergosky, thanks very much.

Anthony Chergosky:
Thank you.