Frederica Freyberg:

JB Van Hollen is not seeking re-election. In the August 12 primary Wisconsin voters will narrow the field of candidates running for state attorney general. This week Here and Now continues a series of interviews with the Democratic primary candidates. Earlier this week I spoke with Jefferson County district attorney Susan Happ and asked her why she wants to be Wisconsin’s next attorney general.

Susan Happ:

Well, I decided to run because I care about Wisconsin, and I care about our communities and the safety of our children and our citizens. But most importantly I care about our future. And by that I mean, we’ve just seen that Wisconsin has become a state that’s become so divided politically and we’ve got neighbors and friends who can’t really talk about the issues that matter to them. And I’m a candidate who comes from a Republican county as a Democrat, so I have this history and this demonstrated ability to work across party lines, and I really think we just need to start focusing on the issues that matter to all of our citizens.

Frederica Freyberg:

How does your experience prepare you for the job of attorney general?

Susan Happ:

Well, as district attorney, you know, I know firsthand as a front-line prosecutor, you know, about public safety. I’ve worked with the Department of Justice, with some of the assistant attorneys general. I worked directly with other assistant attorneys general in terms of training law enforcement. We’ve worked with the division of criminal investigation, the crimes labs. And I think it’s very important that our attorney general, you know, have that prosecutorial experience, know where the system works, but also have the insight to know where we can improve. And so I think that the background that I have both as district attorney and the decade that I had in private practice in a small– a rural community make me the most qualified for that position.

Frederica Freyberg:

What do you believe is the most important role of the attorney general?

Susan Happ:

Well, simply, I think, you know, we look at the attorney general and the attorney general has this tremendous opportunity to really represent all of our citizens. The attorney general is the people’s lawyer. And so he or she is charged with, you know, defending the constitution and upholding our laws, but also everything from consumer protection to our environmental laws, to being a voice for people who maybe don’t have the power and the connections in our government. And obviously public safety is one of the top priorities of that office.

Frederica Freyberg:

As attorney general, Republican JB Van Hollen has defended many of the laws that have ended up in the courts, Act 10, same-sex marriage ban, voter ID. As attorney general, when do you get to choose which laws to defend on behalf of the state?

Susan Happ:

Well, and it depends on what you mean by choose. You don’t get to choose, right? You take a constitutional oath to uphold the constitution and then you have to apply the constitution to those types of cases and challenges. So, for example, same-sex marriage was something you brought up, that case isn’t about choosing to pursue an ideology. It’s not about religious freedom. It’s not about, you know, approving of a lifestyle. It is about the fact that our law regarding and prohibiting same-sex marriage is not constitutional because it’s violative of equal protection clause. We do not get to discriminate or treat people differently because of a certain arbitrary classification, in this case sexual orientation. So that lawsuit isn’t about, you know, whether you’re actually choosing to enforce a law or whether you’re choosing to defend the constitution. It really comes down to whether it is a constitutional law as passed.

Frederica Freyberg:

What have you seen in the current attorney general’s office that you would like to change or improve upon?

Susan Happ:

Well, you know, I think one of the things that’s been in the news recently has been, you know, the processing of these tips relating to internet crimes against children and child pornography. We know that we can’t let our children fall through the cracks, but we also know as technology develops, so do the offenders. So I think part of the issue has been these tips have greatly multiplied in number, and so I’d like to, you know, look at that process, make sure that those tips are processed quickly and efficiently so that they can be turned over to local law enforcement for investigation, and ultimately to the local district attorneys for prosecution. And that’s something I’ve done as district attorney. When you have sensitive cases or cases particularly involving children or child pornography, you have to expedite that. So that’s something that comes to the front of my mind.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now I understand that your position on drunk driving prosecutions is that first offenses should not be criminalized. Why not?

Susan Happ:

Well, I question whether or not that's going to have any deterrent effect. We know that offenders when they’re intoxicated aren’t thinking clearly. And we also know that that person should be aware in the recesses of their mind that if they injure or kill someone, they’re facing a lengthy term of time in prison. And yet they get behind the wheel anyway. And so I’m not convinced, and I haven’t seen any data that shows, that criminalizing it, by virtue making someone now have a criminal conviction or perhaps spending a few days in jail, is going to deter that behavior. What I do know is that we have a serious, serious problem both with the social acceptability of drunk driving. We have to start working on that starting with our kids. But also that we have these repeat drunk drivers who get behind the wheel time and time again, and we’ve got to be tougher on those offenders. In Wisconsin you can serve as little as 60 days, which is 45 day with good time, for a fourth offense drunk driving. And I think everyone, whether they’re a Democrat or independent Republican really thinks and knows that that directly impacts public safety. We’ve got to get tougher on repeat drunk drivers.