Here & Now

Van Hollen Previews What Lies Ahead in 2013

Zac Schultz:

Attorney General J.B Van Hollen, thanks for joining us.

J.B Van Hollen:

Great to be here.

Zac Schultz:

Opponents of Act 10, the law that eliminated most collective bargaining rights for most public employees, won victories in both federal court and state court this year, resulting in a number of the provisions being on hold. Both of those cases are in the appellate division. Are you confident that all of Act 10 will eventually be upheld and on the books?

J.B Van Hollen:

I am. I’m very confident. Keep in mind we’ve had multiple levels of litigation over Act 10. The first case went to the state Supreme Court relatively rapidly and we won that case. The case, that the other side won small parts of it in federal court, I would say that means that the state really won the overwhelming majority of it. We've appealed a small potions that we did not prevail on, and we think that after our argument, which has already occurred with the 7th circuit court of appeals, our chances of victory are very, very huge. And if it doesn’t exist, we still won the preponderance of that argument. With regards to the case that's been lost in Dane County, I flat out believe that the judges made an inappropriate legal interpretation. I've had a chance to look at all the case law that relates to this specific law, and I believe that most of it was either ignored or was not given the weight that it really deserved. And his decision really went out on a tangent. I feel as strongly about our ability to win the Act 10 appeals as perhaps any appeals we’ve had since we’ve been here.

Zac Schultz:

Talking about controversial issues, the voter ID law has been completely overturned by two more Dane County judges. Where are those cases? Because I know you’re trying to get those to the Supreme Court as well. They’re held up in the appellate level. How fast will we see those go anywhere?

J.B Van Hollen:

See, unlike Act 10, I think those cases, there’s a little more to argue on the other side. It's a little more cases of first impression. There isn't a lot of ruling aren’t a lot of rulings on that like there are on collective bargaining, things along those lines. I still believe that their ability to show that people are being disenfranchised has not been there. And so because of that, I’m very excited about the possibility of getting this in front of the state Supreme Court. And that's who it is in front of right now. They, for the third time, have the ability to determine whether they’re going to take the cases right now, consolidate them and hear them before the appellate courts. I think, based upon their past statements, they will do that.

Zac Schultz:

Would you suggest the legislature to go ahead with a constitutional amendment as well?

J.B Van Hollen:

No, I don’t think a constitutional amendment is necessary. A constitutional amendment, of course, requires us to go through two different bodies of the legislature, through a vote of the people, and I don’t think we necessarily need to handle all these things through a constitutional amendment. I strongly disagree with any argument that our constitution in Wisconsin prohibits us from having a photo ID law for voting. I believe that if for some reason we do not prevail in the Supreme Court, tweaks can be made to the law and repassed by a simple legislative majority and signed by the governor to have a law in place that will satisfy whatever concerns the courts have.

Zac Schultz:

The new capitol police chief and the Department of Administration have requested that the Department of Justice handle the prosecution of tickets handled out to protestors at the Capitol. Defense attorneys of the protestors are claiming First Amendment rights. I’ve read reports that say you actually don’t want that argument in front of a jury. You want a court to handle that. How many different levels are we talking about when we're handing tickets to protestors?

J.B Van Hollen:

Well, there’s a lot of different levels of our consideration that go into it. Obviously, first of all, it’s our job to assist law enforcement. And if the Capitol police, as in this case, don’t believe that they’re getting appropriate service from the district attorney’s office, and we have the ability to help them out to make sure all laws get a fair shake, we’re going to do that. Especially since the Capitol is a unique place. I mean, it's a place where we as the state’s attorneys certainly have unique jurisdiction, or concurrent jurisdiction, with the Dane County district attorney. So we want to make sure that we’re there to be of service to law enforcement and they have prosecutors on their side. But it’s also really important that we make sure that the Capitol is accessible to all. And I think most of the people who are complaining about First Amendment rights are the ones who are being either cited or representing those being cited. They’ve got to keep in mind that all of the other people have First Amendment rights too. This is the people’s house. The reason why we have a permitting process, the reason they need to do what we've always expected people to do, so that everybody has the opportunity to use the Capitol. We get a lot of complaints about people who don’t have the ability, or they feel discouraged, or they don’t feel comfortable being here. Legislators who aren't comfortable doing their jobs. All we’re asking for people to do is apply for a free permit that allows everybody the fair opportunity to use the Capitol. We’re very confident we’re going to win those citations and whatever appeals come from those.

Zac Schultz:

Would you expect this to be another issue that may go to the state Supreme Court as well?

J.B Van Hollen:

I think it potentially could, but I don’t know that it’s necessarily such a no-brainer as the other cases. You know, these are citations. They don’t rise to significant constitutional issues. First Amendment is a significant constitutional issue, but is this a legitimate, you know, First Amendment issue that’s being brought up by virtue of these citations?

Zac Schultz:

The Department of Justice has had legal observers at the polls on election day dating back to 2004. In that time there have been millions and millions of ballots cast and a very small number of voter fraud issues brought forward. Do you believe there is enough voter fraud Wisconsin? Enough so to tip the balance in a given election?

J.B Van Hollen:

Sure, I think we have election integrity problems that need to be addressed, or I never would have been a proponent of voter ID in the first place. I would have never been out there prosecuting cases of election integrity. We definitely have a problem. When you have something so valuable as a constitutional right to vote, we need to protect that, and we don’t want a lawful vote diluted by those who don’t have a lawful vote. The problem we have right now is the laws in Wisconsin make it so easy to violate the law and to vote illegally that it’s very difficult for us to even determine who is, or how many are, or to do anything about investigating or prosecuting it. Photo ID not only requires people to prove who they are to vote, but it gives us the ability to identify who actually voted, so if we want to conduct an investigation or a prosecution, we have some information to do so.

Zac Schultz:

Can you understand though how people on the other side of this issue say you’re all talking about faith, trusting. You can't prove it. Where’s the evidence that would lead us to say you need this strong of a law?

J.B Van Hollen:

An example that I use is we go to the county fair or a festival and you have a beer tent and you say that you can’t come in and drink unless you’re 21, yet you don’t permit anybody to card people on the way in. Well, you can’t prove that anyone under 21 was in there. Well, of course you can because we weren’t allowed to collect that proof. The lack of photoID in and of itself makes it very difficult to show that there’s voter fraud. However, if you look at the prosecutions between Milwaukee County and the Department of justice that we have had, it’s very evident that if anybody who says there isn’t any voter fraud is burying their heads in the sand. People have confessed to it and pled guilty to it.

Zac Schultz:

That’s all we have time for. Thank you.

J.B. Van Hollen:

Alright, thank you. Appreciate it.