Announcer:

The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production.

Frederica Freyberg:

Record turnout in the spring primary selects two general election candidates for state Supreme Court. Dangerous winter weather strikes the straight yet again. Recent incidents send a warning that antisemitism is alive and well and flags fly at half-staff over the state Capitol in honor of former Governor Tony Earl. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” Zac Schultz’s brings context to the primary election results and a former Supreme Court justice gives us her take on the winners. History repeats itself as antisemitic acts increase and physicians say patient care will suffer if Medicare payments don’t improve. It’s “Here & Now” for February 24.

Announcer:

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

Frederica Freyberg:

Following Tuesday’s primary election, two candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court head into campaigning for the general election set for April 4. Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Janet Protasiewicz won 46.5% of the vote and former justice Daniel Kelly garnered 24.2%. They each spoke at their election night parties focusing on the primary topic in this race and likely to come before the court: abortion.

Janet Protasiewicz:

I can’t tell you how I’ll rule in any case but throughout this race, I have been absolutely clear about what my values are. And that’s because I believe the voters of this state deserve to know what a candidate’s values are. I value a woman’s freedom to make her own reproductive health care decisions.

Daniel Kelly:

This is going to be an election like no other. Tonight we join the battle in the fight to preserve our constitutional form of government against a novel and grave threat. Janet Protasiewicz’s promise to set aside our law and our constitution whether they conflict with her personal values cannot be allowed to stand.

Frederica Freyberg:

The high stakes race only gets more attention from here. We turn to senior political reporter Zac Schultz who joins us from the state Capitol with more. Hi Zac.

Zac Schultz:

Hello Fred.

Frederica Freyberg:

Was this the primary election outcome that was expected?

Zac Schultz:

I don’t think you can be really too surprised. Certainly not on the liberal side. Janet Protasiewicz had the most money. She had the first commercial on the air. She had really consolidated a lot of democratic support around her campaign pretty early on. The other liberal Dane County Judge Everett Mitchell tried hard to get some of that support and he had a few people but he never had the money to get his name out there. Seeing Janet Protasiewicz advance is not surprising. Maybe the margins for some people might have been surprising. On the Republican side, we knew all along this was going to be a very close margin. And it kind of goes against your conventional thinking but the outcome here may fit even though Jennifer Dorow may have been the favorite ahead of time and that’s because we saw both Daniel Kelly’s campaign, outside interest groups and some liberals all attack Jennifer Dorow to try and knock her down and take her out of the race all for different reasons but getting the same result of advancing Daniel Kelly. On his part because obviously he wanted to win, on the liberals’ part because they thought Daniel Kelly would be a much more favorable match-up for Janet Protasiewicz in the general election. So even though she might have been favored ahead of time, this outcome is not terribly surprising and the margin was so narrow that you could see it did come down to the end.

Frederica Freyberg:

Tuesday’s election saw record turnout for a Supreme Court primary. What did turnout look like across the state?

Zac Schultz:

It varied across the regions. In some parts of the southern more populous areas of the state, there was really high turnout. As you got to the northwest corner, there was lower turnout and some of that fits with the conventional thinking of how these campaigns work. We’re talking February 21st, the middle of winter. Generally there’s not a lot of attention paid and this was really driven by advertising. How much did people even know that one, there was an election, and two, that it was this important. It’s harder to penetrate northern and northwest Wisconsin with advertising dollars in the same way you can blanket southeast Wisconsin and southern Wisconsin and Dane County. So it’s not terribly surprising, plus in Madison, you had a contested mayoral primary. In northern Milwaukee, you had a contested primary on the republican side for a special election in the 8th senate district. All those things kind of conspired to drive turnout in more populous regions.

Frederica Freyberg:

Did anything stand out about partisan voting patterns?

Zac Schultz:

Yeah, absolutely. I’m not the first person to point out there’s definitely a split across the state in republican voting trends. We’ve seen this happen time and time again over the past 10 to 15 years where southeastern Wisconsin, especially where southeast Wisconsin talk radio dominates, has a different opinion of who they favor in a primary versus outside, northern rural Wisconsin. And it used to be southeastern Wisconsin was enough to dominate. That’s how Scott Walker won his primary way back when to become the governor. That’s how Rebecca Kleefisch became lieutenant governor but over time that has shifted and it’s actually been playing out more and more that the rest of the state, outstate and rural Wisconsin for Republicans actually can outnumber southeastern Wisconsin. We saw this again. Jennifer Dorow’s area of support was all in the Milwaukee suburbs and that area where talk radio really had endorsed her but Daniel Kelly just was close enough there and he really beat her pretty handily in the rest of the state and that was enough for him to win by just a couple percentage points.

Frederica Freyberg:

Former justice Kelly lost his lost election for Supreme Court. Does that mean he’s vulnerable here?

Zac Schultz:

Democrats certainly think so. That’s what they wanted to see. But in reality, we’ve seen lots of candidates historically across Wisconsin run after losing an election and try again. The message that may or may not win the second time is not that we’ve rejected them before, that they’ve lost an election. It’s that people know what their vulnerabilities are because they polled against him in the past. In this case, Daniel Kelly will point back to 2020 saying there was a presidential primary on the same ballot and he lost because Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden had a contested primary and on the other side, Donald Trump wasn’t contested and he says that’s the majority of the margin. Really this is a completely different race. We shouldn’t look to that as the road map so what may happen here because we don’t have the same circumstances.

Frederica Freyberg:

Do you feel like there’s any lingering effects from the kind of infighting in the republican primary Jennifer Dorow and Daniel Kelly?

Zac Schultz:

That remains to be seen and that’s something Republicans are certainly watching and Democrats would like to take advantage of if they can in any way, shape or form. We saw a similar thing play out along the same lines last summer when Tim Michels won the gubernatorial primary, one of the Republicans beating Rebecca Kleefisch, attacking Kleefisch heavily and investing in ads beating her and Kleefisch and her supporters weren’t happy about that and there really wasn’t that unifying moment that came afterwards. This time around, we saw Daniel Kelly saying he would not support Jennifer Dorow if she was the one to advance. He refused to endorse her before this. Jennifer Dorow said she would endorse Kelly and she has since then saying the Republicans need to unify around him but there may still be Dorow supporters who are a little miffed about the idea that Kelly wouldn’t support their person going forward. So whether that fracture maintains and exists or if Republican Party certainly wants to maintain the idea that the April 4 primary is more important than any fractures that may have existed before but that’s something to be aware of as we’re going forward in this campaign.

Frederica Freyberg:

Super quickly, spending in this race is expected to be stratospheric. Do you know what the projections are and who’s giving?

Zac Schultz:

We’re looking at least $20 to $40 million. It’s going to be closer to past gubernatorial elections than anything we’ve seen with the Supreme Court. A lot of outstate, a lot of special interest money.

Frederica Freyberg:

Zac Schultz, thank you very much.

Zac Schultz:

Thanks Fred.

Frederica Freyberg:

It’s said Wisconsin Supreme Court elections are nonpartisan in name only and that seems more true now than ever. What does a former justice of the high court think of this trend? We turn to Janine Geske, who served on the court from 1993 to 1998. Justice, thanks for being here.

Janine Geske:

It’s my pleasure to be here. What do I think?

Frederica Freyberg:

Do you think we’ve come fully out of the gates with these just being kind of partisan politics now?

Janine Geske:

Well, it appears that way. It appears that way by everything from endorsements to the money being put in to people talking about what their values and their beliefs are. And it looks like to the electorate, people are running on issues how they’re going to vote. To me that is much more a legislative partisan race than it is a Supreme Court race. I find it very distressing.

Frederica Freyberg:

I want to talk more about and also relay to the viewers and remind them that Judge Protasiewicz is campaigning as a supporter of abortion rights and says the legislative maps are rigged. She maintains voters want to know where people stand but again, you don’t think so.

Janine Geske:

The problem with that and I understand — I mean, we all have our own beliefs. The problem is whether people believe it to be a signal on how she’s going to vote on the issue. That’s all fine if that’s your values but if you’re taking an oath that you will follow the law regardless of where it leads you in opinion, even if it’s inconsistent with what you might vote for, that’s what a judge should do. I think both candidates are doing that in different ways of indicating or hinting where they may vote and I have no doubt both of them would take their role seriously but the electorate is going to believe the issue is on the ballot as opposed to the candidate. And we want judges that are going to look at each case independently and look at it and whether their supporters like it or not come to the conclusion they believe is right.

Frederica Freyberg:

Former Justice Kelly isn’t exactly nonpartisan. He’s worked for both the state and national Republican parties including advising on the fake elector scheme here in Wisconsin and yet he does say this virtue signaling, as we’ve discussed, makes Judge Protasiewicz not committed to the constitutional order. Is that — do you think that’s fair?

Janine Geske:

No, I think both candidates are doing it in different ways and I think there are not people who are doubting where Justice Kelly indicates he might be on issues. He’s doing it in different ways and he shows it in different ways about how he’s worked and who he’s represented and what issues he’s taken on. I think the question we have to ask them is if your legal conclusion comes to a different result than what you’re advocating now, are you willing to do that? If you can’t, then you shouldn’t sit on cases. I think they’re both giving the feeling about where they are on issues. There’s nothing wrong with that as long as voters understand their oath is to decide sometimes inconsistently with what they might believe.

Frederica Freyberg:

Does it seem like a charade then to suggest neither side would “legislate from the bench?”

Janine Geske:

Well, I don’t think it’s a charade. I’m not doubting the integrity of the candidates. What I’m concerned about is how the campaigns get shaped so people believe that’s what we’re electing. An example of that we can point to Justice Kelly’s view to Justice Hagedorn and when he’s referring to Justice Hagedorn, he talks about him not being trustworthy and not being reliable because he wasn’t reliably conservative which means Justice Hagedorn came to a different legal conclusion than perhaps Justice Kelly would. We can’t be calling people — some people call him traitors. I don’t know that Justice Kelly has done that but certainly indicated that he is profoundly disappointed in Justice Hagedorn on the results of his votes on cases and I think people have to understand you have to do that when you’re a judge and people may not always be happy with the result.

Frederica Freyberg:

What happened to the days of candidates for the Supreme Court saying they couldn’t talk about that because that issue might come before them? It sounds almost quaint today.

Janine Geske:

Well it was. It wasn’t quaint, it was really true. There are times that I’ve publicly talked about cases that my vote was not consistent with what I would have done if I were voting, voting at the ballot box. There are times sometimes I would write a concurrence or another opinion saying I wish the legislature would look at this and change things but this is the way I interpreted it as a judge. I think the risk that people are going to think you’re electing people who are going to deliver a vote for you is unfortunate. I’m actually becoming an advocate for appointment of judges. I think we’ve gone way over the line of trying to elect fair and impartial judges that people can have confidence in.

Frederica Freyberg:

What does all of this mean including the high stakes, high-spending nature of this race reportedly projected to be the most expensive judicial election in the United States? What does all this mean for the integrity in your mind of the court?

Janine Geske:

I think it really impacts the integrity of the court and the faith people have in the independence of the judiciary. It ripples all the way down to the trial courts. It’s not just the Supreme Court that people are going to think judges respond to their supporters and that certain parties are going to win because of who is sitting on the bench. This is not what our founders wanted when they made Wisconsin a state where we elect judges. I think they wanted judges who were involved in their communities, that were out that people respected and knew and committed their lives to public service and now we’ve got these ads and things giving us the sense we’re electing people who are going to represent certain interests.

Frederica Freyberg:

Janine Geske, we leave it there. Thank you for your thoughts.

Janine Geske:

You’re welcome. Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

In other state news, antisemitic acts increased by more than 450% between 2015 and 2021 according to the Milwaukee Jewish Federation. For one holocaust historian in Kenosha, one of these acts came directly to her door step. “Here & Now” student journalist Aditi Debnath has the story.

Judith Fai-Podlipnik:

It was in the morning around 8:00, 8:30 in the morning and I look down and I just see this object and picked it up and I was actually quite horrified. Not horrified but I was shocked.

Aditi Debnath:

Judith Fai-Podlipnik’s shock and horror came from discovering an antisemitic flyer on the driveway of her home in Kenosha.

Judith Fai-Podlipnik:

All the way down the street up until 75th street, there were pamphlets scattered.

Aditi Debnath:

The flyer claimed Jewish people caused the COVID-19 pandemic. Fai-Podlipnik says it was in a plastic bag and weighed down by rocks and a single penny. As a holocaust historian, Fai-Podlipnik is used to studying antisemitism.

Judith Fai-Podlipnik:

I called the police and I offered them the information and to provide them with the pamphlet and they said they already had it and they were informed of it.

Aditi Debnath:

The Kenosha Police Department was able to identify the perpetrator and fine him just over $4,000, not for a hate crime but for littering. Antisemitic acts increased by more than 450% between 2015 and 2021, according to the Milwaukee Jewish Federation. Rabbi Bonnie Margulis says conspiracy theories that spread during the COVID-19 pandemic have caused an increase in casual antisemitism.

Bonnie Margulis:

It’s become so normalized and so ubiquitous and people are so comfortable expressing those kinds of feelings and those thoughts and attitudes.

Aditi Debnath:

Margulis says as the purpliest state, Wisconsin demonstrates how political divisiveness can exacerbate all prejudices.

Bonnie Margulis:

It has really promoted some very narrow and tunneled vision type of thinking and has really made it difficult for people to be able to reach across divides and see each other as human beings.

Aditi Debnath:

According to the FBI, Jewish people have consistently been the most targeted group for religious hate crimes.

Chad Goldberg:

I think in a very divided, a very polarized political environment, what you see is an increasing reluctance for people to call out antisemitism within their own political camp.

Aditi Debnath:

UW-Madison Sociology Professor Chad Goldberg says antisemitism stands out for its subtlety and pervasiveness. He says there are centuries-old antisemitic tropes that still exist in American culture.

Chad Goldberg:

We should remember, for example, in the Middle Ages Jews were accused of poisoning wells. Jews were blamed for the plague. Those motifs because they’ve been around for such a long time, because they still circulate in the culture at some level make Jews really well-suited for the role of scapegoats.

Aditi Debnath:

According to experts, the lack of widespread condemnation of antisemitism alienates Jewish people from their community. Judith Fai-Podlipnik says her experience in Kenosha has made her distrustful of others.

Judith Fai-Podlipnik:

My father who was a holocaust survivor warned me consistently antisemitism is alive and well. It may be under the radar. It may be under the covers but it’s there. Always be careful and it’s going to come back.

Aditi Debnath:

For “Here & Now,” I’m Aditi Debnath in Kenosha.

Frederica Freyberg:

With talk in Washington about cutting back on so-called entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, doctors are crying foul about how Medicare reimbursement rates they get are already not keeping pace. Physicians have been lobbying Congress over what they get paid for Medicare saying patient care could be at risk. For more on this, we talk with Dr. Jerry Halverson, a physician and chair of the board of the Wisconsin Medical Society. Thank you for being here.

Jerry Halverson:

You’re welcome. Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

For a really long time, doctors have been talking about how Medicare reimbursement rates were too low. What’s the current status?

Jerry Halverson:

Well, we’ve been having problems with this for 20, 30 years. It’s been a long time and this is something we would go to Congress and talk about because as we’ll talk about if our practices aren’t being funded, we’re not going to be around to be able to take care of patients. A few years back, there was an opportunity to change the dialogue, to change how the payments is happening. We jumped on that because it hadn’t changed in 20, 30 years. Unfortunately that is still not adequate. We’ve obviously been through a very difficult time the past three years and we’ve actually had payment cuts that are set to go into place this year already and this is when we’re already at rates basically that are 1980 type of rates that have not been adjusted. Let alone adjusted for the inflation that we’ve had. If you look at real dollars, physicians have already had a 22% cut in the past 20 years.

Frederica Freyberg:

Describe how that affects patient care?

Jerry Halverson:

That absolutely affects patient care. Our goal is to have the patient be able to have choice and be able to see the doctor close to them, the doctor they choose. And what happens is, particularly in rural areas or underserved areas, we have doctors’ offices who are basically small businesses and if they have primarily patients that are Medicare that the payment is under what they would get for other types of insurance products, you have choices. You can either take less Medicare or ultimately sometimes physicians have to close their practices. And when they close their practices, they probably move to less rural areas where they can have — where they can be busier and that choice for those patients is lost and so what happens is the patient has fewer choices and often times the patient has to driver further to get the care they need.

Frederica Freyberg:

Congress did give tens of billions of dollars of relief funds to clinicians during the pandemic but that was all used during that period of time?

Jerry Halverson:

Yeah, the pandemic — operating in a pandemic, as we’ve all learned, has been challenging. With a lot of the other increases in pay that we’ve seen from the government, a lot of that paid for new requirements or new administrative burdens they put in our way. Overall real dollars, as I’ve said before, we’ve probably been cut about 20% and when you’re trying to keep a practice open, when you’re hiring nurses, you’re hiring office staff, it’s a small business. It’s just not sustainable.

Frederica Freyberg:

How hard is it to engender sympathy for highly paid physicians even though they are regarded as the health care heroes of the past several years?

Jerry Halverson:

I think people — we continue to talk about this being really patient options. If the physician isn’t there, the physician is an important part of the community obviously they deliver health which as we’ve learned over the past few years is invaluable. If the physician is not there, the practice is not there. The patients suffer. The patients aren’t able to see their trusted doctor they’ve gotten to know over time. As I said, they have to drive further and often times if you make care less convenient, care doesn’t happen. So what happens is people don’t get care until it’s more catastrophic care or oftentimes until it’s further down the line where less is able to happen that can arrest it. So what happens is once the physicians go, if that’s what happens, patients pay the price.

Frederica Freyberg:

So apart from the specific lobbying efforts around these reimbursement rates right now, what is the feeling among the medical community and these physicians about these discussions in Washington about cutting entitlements as they’re called, like Medicare?

Jerry Halverson:

This is really an important way for patients to get access to good care and our hope is to continue to be available for patients to have choices, to go to the physician or other health care professional they want to in a way that’s convenient. When I think about these numbers being cut, obviously we think about the rates being cut. We think about the idea that it’s going to be more difficult for people to get treatment and as we’ve seen particularly early on in the pandemic, when people put treatment off, bad things happen.

Frederica Freyberg:

How have lobbying efforts been met by congressional members, particularly from Wisconsin?

Jerry Halverson:

We visited all of the offices that were open to us. We visited most offices and even in a time so contentious as this, there’s a lot of agreement. There’s a lot of agreement Medicare should be held safe. That’s what we’re being told. We’re being told that patients should continue to have choice. We’re being told physicians should be able to take care of patients with Medicare without having to go out of business. Without worry of keeping the lights on. Whether you’re Democrat or Republican, you’re agreeing with this. At least that’s what they’re saying to us.

Frederica Freyberg:

Dr. Jerry Halverson, thank you very much.

Jerry Halverson:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

And finally tonight we remember former Governor Tony Earl who passed away Thursday after suffering from a stroke earlier this week. As the 41st governor of Wisconsin, the former Democratic leader leaves a legacy known for his work on environmental issues and promoting LGBTQ rights. Responding to his passing, Governor Tony Evers said, “Tony was always a staunch defender of our state’s proud traditions, including conservation and his passing is a significant loss for our state and for all who had the fortune of meeting and serving with him.” He was first elected to the state Assembly in 1969 and served until 1974. Following his time in the Legislature, he was a state cabinet secretary for two departments under three different administrations. He was elected governor in 1983 and served one term. After elected office, he went on to serve on many boards including Common Cause Wisconsin, where he worked on campaign finance reform. In a statement, his four daughters said of their father, he would encourage anyone he knew to actively engage in positive change. Tony Earl was 86.

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.