Here & Now

Here & Now for January 17, 2020

Announcer:

A PBS Wisconsin original production. The following program is part of our “Here & Now” 2020 election coverage.

Frederica Freyberg:

I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” Zac Schultz takes us to Milwaukee for coverage of this week’s Trump campaign rally. New statewide poll numbers show how Democratic primary candidates stack up against President Trump. Expert insight into the ongoing legal action over purging Wisconsin voters from the rolls. And State Supreme Court candidate Circuit Court Judge Jill Karofsky is here. It’s “Here & Now” for January 17.

Announcer:

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

Frederica Freyberg:

The impeachment trial of Donald Trump transitioned from the lower House up to the U.S. Senate, where charges of the president’s abuse of power and obstruction of Congress will be tried. Meanwhile, the president held a campaign rally in Wisconsin this week, where the topic of impeachment barely came up. “Here & Now” reporter Zac Schultz was there.

Announcer at rally:

Donald J. Trump.

Zac Schultz:

Tuesday night, Donald Trump was welcomed by a standing ovation from a full house at Panther Arena in downtown Milwaukee.

Donald Trump:

Hello, Milwaukee. Hello.

Zac Schultz:

A Trump campaign rally always focuses more on the rally than the campaign.

Donald Trump:

You gotta love Trump. You gotta love Trump.

Zac Schultz:

Even before the president’s arrival, Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson told the crowd to prepare for an experience.

Ron Johnson:

But Donald Trump is different and Donald Trump is going to come here. He’s going to inspire you and he’s going to entertain you and you’re going to leave in a really good mood.

Zac Schultz:

That’s exactly why so many in the crowd waited in line for hours to get a front row seat.

Chris Kreitlow:

It’s just the energy, the people. I love it. It’s close to home, so something to do on a Tuesday night. Nothing better than a Trump rally on a Tuesday night, baby. Hooh!

Jerry Lohr:

Yeah. We’re looking for a little excitement and I’m sure he’s going to supply it.

Zac Schultz:

Even before Trump took the stage, the crowd provided their own excitement doing “the wave” and chanting for “Four more years.”

Crowd:

Four more years.

Woman:

It’s great. It’s better than a ball game.

Donald Trump:

And is there ever, ever a better place to be than a Trump rally?

Zac Schultz:

During his hour and a half on stage, Trump spent his time talking about his accomplishments in office, criticizing his opponents and the media.

Donald Trump:

Anything I say that’s even slightly false, it’s headlines. Trump said this. These people. He said this. This is one of the greatest — I would say this. This is the greatest movement in the history of our country.

Zac Schultz:

But Trump says things that are slightly false, as he acknowledges, and things that are blatantly false, like the 15,000 false or misleading claims tracked by the Washington Post through December of last year. He repeated another lie Tuesday regarding whether Mexico is paying for his border wall.

Donald Trump:

And by the way, they think they caught me. They never catch us. Because, you know, Mexico’s paying for the wall. You know that. You’ll see that. It’s all worked out.

Zac Schultz:

Mexico is not paying for the wall. Trump is actually diverting money away from the military for the reconstruction that’s underway, something he acknowledged just an hour later in the same speech.

Donald Trump:

A very big and very powerful border wall is going up at a record speed and we are at — we’re fully financed now. Isn’t that nice? That wasn’t easy.

William Decaire:

You gotta love him. He is what he is.

Zac Schultz:

But many Trump supporters don’t worry about a fact check because they consider Trump to be emotionally honest.

William Decaire:

100% honest. Whatever is going through his brain comes right out of his mouth and sometimes right through his fingertips onto Twitter.

Zac Schultz:

And that’s a character trait they can support.

William Decaire:

You can’t hold him accountable for every little mistake that comes out of his mouth and that is blunt honesty right there. That’s what I’m voting for.

Crowd:

Four more years.

Zac Schultz:

Reporting from Milwaukee, I’m Zac Schultz for “Here & Now.”

Crowd:

Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!

Frederica Freyberg:

New statewide poll numbers were released the same week as President Trump’s visit to the badger state, numbers that show, for the moment, the mixed view of the incumbent and his policies. In tonight’s closer look, we go over the results of the new Marquette Law School Poll with Poll Director Charles Franklin. Thanks a lot for being here.

Charles Franklin:

Good to be here.

Frederica Freyberg:

In our first poll question that we chose, approval of President Trump’s handling of foreign policy in the wake of the military action between Iran and the U.S. 44% approve, 53% disapprove, you found. How much does this disapproval, do you suppose, transfer to the voting booth?

Charles Franklin:

Well, we’ll see. This — foreign policy is his weakest area of evaluation, whereas the economy is his strongest. We didn’t see any bump in the foreign policy views as a result of the military exchange with Iran. We were completely in the field after that occurred. But his approval on foreign policy was exactly the same as two months ago. It was one point higher than it was a month ago. So over those three polls, you just don’t see any change at all. Foreign policy is one of those things that in an emergency can become a really important issue for the public. But for most of the time, it’s a secondary consideration.

Frederica Freyberg:

Speaking of foreign policy, our next slide shows whether or not your respondents thought that President Trump did something wrong in dealing with Ukraine. 40% said they did believe that. 37% believed they did not. There’s polarity in these numbers that seems to kind of match the electorate.

Charles Franklin:

And, again, the very stable results on this. It’s been essentially 40/37 for four months. The 37 has hardly budged. The 40 was as high as 42. Not very much difference. The one thing that is different is some people say he did something wrong but it wasn’t seriously wrong. And that number has edged up just a little bit. I think that’s folks going from don’t know what he did there to saying, yeah, but it’s not that big a deal. Bottom line, though, is the balance is not changed.

Frederica Freyberg:

So what does any of that say about voters’ interest, do you suppose, in removing the president for his actions?

Charles Franklin:

Really closely divided again. Now that the House has actually voted for impeachment, and of course the Senate trial is beginning to get underway, we asked should the Senate convict and remove him from office or should they exonerate him. 44%, convict and remove. 49%, exonerate. So a five-point gap. Before the House voted, we had about 40% who said he should be impeached and removed. A different question. So maybe support for removal is up a little bit, but because we’ve worded the question differently now that the House has already voted, it’s not exactly comparable.

Frederica Freyberg:

Let’s take a look at the Democratic candidates running for president. Top four Democratic presidential primary picks: Joe Biden, 23%; Bernie Sanders, 19%; Pete Buttigieg, 15%, Warren, 14%. Any surprises here?

Charles Franklin:

No. The top four have been the top four for the last five months, four months, at least. The top three here are exactly the same percentages they had before Christmas. I think it’s like people went away for the holidays and didn’t really think about politics. Elizabeth Warren is down two points from where she was last time, so she was in third place, now in fourth, but one point difference. There’s no meaningful change there. She slipped just a little bit in national polling. I think the big story here is 60% still say they might change their mind of Democratic primary voters. That’s a little less than the 65% we had a month ago. So maybe people are firming up their views a little bit. But the real action is going to come after Iowa does their first vote in the caucus in about little over two weeks and when New Hampshire votes. By the time we talk to people in February, this race will be a lot more clear about what actual voters are saying in the early events.

Frederica Freyberg:

Let’s take a look at the general election match-ups. You show Joe Biden with 49% to Trump 45%. Bernie Sanders 47% – Trump 46%. Elizabeth Warren 45% – Trump 48%. Pete Buttigieg 44% and Trump 46%. All of these numbers are within the margin of error, yet Biden consistently on top.

Charles Franklin:

Biden has been consistently running best against Trump in polling since October, really since August, really. But the degree to which he does well has varied. We’ve seen Trump a little bit ahead of Biden, about four months ago, but Biden has steadily improved over the last four polls. Bernie Sanders has improved a bit. The others have been a little bit more mixed, mostly just bouncing around. I think the real story is it’s a battleground state. These are all, as you say, inside the margin of error. There’s been maybe a little bit of growth in support for Biden and for Sanders, either stability or maybe slight shrinkage for Buttigieg and Warren.

Frederica Freyberg:

Let’s jump ahead to Governor Evers’ job performance. 51% approve, 40% disapprove. How do these numbers stack up for a governor rounding out his first year?

Charles Franklin:

Pretty decent. The 51 is above 50%, but not a lot. But the net approval of plus 11 points is pretty good. If you want to contrast him with Governor Walker, Governor Walker was usually between 48% and 50% or 51%. Rarely over 50%, actually. But Walker had a higher percentage that disapproved through much of his first term. Evers has benefited a bit by having disapproval in the 30s to low 40s as we see this time, a net plus 11.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Charles Franklin, thanks very much for your work.

Charles Franklin:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now to an inside look at an evolving legal case, the results of which may result in hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin voters getting purged from the state registration rolls. These are voters the State Elections Commission believes have changed address. The commission is legally required to send a notice to these voters asking them to confirm their current address. Those who do not respond are to be removed from the registration rolls. There are more than 200,000 such voters. A lot happened this week. An Ozaukee County circuit court judge held three members of the commission in contempt of court for ignoring his December order to immediately strike the voters from the rolls. The State Supreme Court turned away an appeal of the case. And an appeals court put a stay on the circuit court decision. A lot of people’s voter registrations are on the line. And a lot to unpack with UW-Madison Professor of Political Science David Canon. Thanks for being here.

David Canon:

Good to be here.

Frederica Freyberg:

So it could be said that this is all embroiled in the courts and controversy, but it is on hold for this moment, the decision to immediately purge these voters. How interesting is it to you that the State Supreme Court declined to take this case at this time?

David Canon:

I think it’s very interesting they did not take this up. I think a lot of people were expecting them to try to get quick resolution to this because by not taking the case, it virtually guarantees this will drag well into the year, maybe even past the November elections because now they’ll have the full hearing at the appeals court level. That will no doubt be appealed to the State Supreme Court then whichever side loses. Plus we have the parallel case going on in federal court right now. So there’s a pretty good chance that won’t have any final legal resolution to this until after the November election, which indeed was the commission’s original intent anyway, is to not remove those voters until after the election. So it could be this is the way it’s going to play out, kind of no matter what.

Frederica Freyberg:

It really leaves these voters, who were the recipients of these letters, potentially confused.

David Canon:

Well, right. Especially the people who haven’t moved. Like are they okay or not? Are they going to be removed from the rolls or do they need to reply to update their status with voter registration?

Frederica Freyberg:

You’ve said that this circumstance is right out of a book called “The Voting Wars.” How so?

David Canon:

Right. So there’s a book by Rick Hasen, who’s one of the nation’s experts on voting procedures. And Hasen made this argument a couple of years ago that the administration of elections used to be relatively noncontroversial. That both Democrats and Republicans wanted people to vote. They would do whatever they could to get their folks to the polls. But in the last decade or so, this has become a partisan battlefield basically where Republicans have focused on what they call election integrity and fighting voter fraud. Democrats focus on getting more access to the polls. So what you see replayed over and over again across the country is in Republican legislatures passing laws like voter ID laws and restricting access to early voting to try to limit voting, whereas Democrats are trying to do the opposite. So this is an example of one of those kinds of efforts aimed at trying to either prevent people from voting as easily or allowing people to vote. And so on a continuum of the most egregious kind of voter suppression to the more, sort of, not as harmful, I would put this more on the more normal politics side of things in that all election commissions do need to update their voter rolls. It’s part of the normal process of administering elections. The question is one of timing. Do we do this right away as the lawsuit wanted them to do or do we wait until after the November elections is what the commission wanted to do?

Frederica Freyberg:

On the national level, if impeachment is indeed, as you’ve said, a political process, how does the oath of impartiality taken by Senators this week square with that especially today?

David Canon:

That’s a really good question. The last time I was on a couple weeks ago, we talked about James Madison’s view of this. His biggest fear was having partisan politics enter the process of impeachment. And he was really cautioning against that. But we’ve definitely seen that happen from day one with the Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying he’s going to be working on behalf of the president. Well, that doesn’t exactly sound like an impartial juror in that process. But Democrats as well have indicated that they’re very likely to vote to remove President Trump. And so in this era of partisan politics, the notion of these impartial jurors really is pretty laughable. It’s just not going to happen. The best we can hope for is they do allow for a more full hearing of the evidence.

Frederica Freyberg:

Well, speaking of that, if Senator McConnell does not allow testimony from witnesses, is that what the founding fathers, the framers, kind of had in mind for this process?

David Canon:

Well, the problem with the Constitution when it comes to impeachment is it doesn’t give us much of a road map. It really doesn’t give any detail in terms of how that trial will be conducted. So what we have basically is the precedent of the two earlier presidential impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. And in both of those cases, we did have testimony from witnesses and it was more like a full trial where you would hear the evidence on both sides and then the Senate would decide. That really is more the governing sort of precedent, is the actual practices rather than the Constitution itself.

Frederica Freyberg:

We’ll see. Any telling how Chief Justice John Roberts will see his role? Because he is the presiding officer.

David Canon:

Right.

Frederica Freyberg:

But see his role when it comes to potentially breaking a 50-50 tie for and against the calling of witnesses?

David Canon:

Right and this is something a lot of people have been talking about the last couple of days is that what kind of role is he going to play? Again with our two prior examples of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, in the first example of the Johnson impeachment, Chief Justice Chase was really very much opposed to Johnson. He made his views known. He did have multiple rulings. He did break ties, when ties came up. Whereas in the Clinton example, Chief Justice Rehnquist was very much on the opposite end of the spectrum. He was not that engaged in making critical decisions. Afterwards he quoted one of his favorite lines from a Gilbert and Sullivan opera, where he said, “I did nothing in particular and I did it rather well.” And he was kind of proud of that. And so some people think Roberts will err to that side of caution and not be very assertive. But he may be forced to take a position and that would be the 50-50 tie scenario that you just outlined, where right now if the vote was held today on witnesses, there’s a chances it could be, because we have three Republicans who’ve said they would like to see witnesses. That puts us right at 50. So the chief justice may have to break that tie one way or the other.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. David Canon, thanks very much.

David Canon:

Good to be with you.

Frederica Freyberg:

Primary election day is February 18 and we turn now to our interview series with candidates running for the State Supreme Court. Two weeks ago, we talked with incumbent Justice Daniel Kelly, last week candidate Marquette Law School Professor Ed Fallone was here. Tonight we introduce you to Jill Karofsky. She currently serves as a Dane County circuit court judge. Karofsky is the former executive director of the Wisconsin Office of Crime Victim Services and she’s a former state assistant attorney general. Jill Karofsky joins us now. Thanks very much for being here.

Jill Karofsky:

Thanks so much for having me here. I really, really appreciate it.

Frederica Freyberg:

So right out of the shoots, we just want to ask you why voters should elect you to the State Supreme Court.

Jill Karofsky:

Voters should elect me to the Supreme Court because I have the experience, I have the values and I have the energy to not only win this election, but to be on the Supreme Court. I’m the only person in this race who is or who has ever been a trial court judge. I presided over more than 1700 cases last year. I see every day how the law impacts real people. I also have experience as a prosecutor. I know how to be smart on crime. I know the importance of protecting individual rights of victims, of witnesses, of defendants, of members of our community. I also have been a victim advocate, as you mentioned. I was Wisconsin’s first Violence Against Women resource prosecutor and as the executive director of the Office of Crime Victims Services. I helped victims in every county in this state get the services and the help that they needed. I have the depth and breadth of experience that we need on the Supreme Court.

Frederica Freyberg:

You say that currently justices are acting like politicians. How so?

Jill Karofsky:

You know, as I’ve been traveling around the state listening to voters, I hear the same thing. What they see are justices who make decisions before anyone ever walks into the State Supreme Court chamber. They see justices who do not follow the rule of law. They see justices who more interested in protecting corporations than in protecting our air and our water from corporate polluters. They see justices who are — all of that feels like corruption to people, because what we have is a justice in Dan Kelly on the court who makes decisions every time he has the opportunity to for corporations, for the wealthy and for the right wing special interests that worked hard to get him on the court and is working hard to keep him on the court.

Frederica Freyberg:

What’s an example of a case like that?

Jill Karofsky:

If you look at — there was a case in 2016 dealing with the administrative rules at the Department of Public Instruction, at DPI. And the court ruled one way in 2016. In 2019 in the Koschkee case with Dan Kelly on the court, the court ruled 180 degrees different direction. The only thing that changed on the court — and this was what Justice Ann Walsh-Bradley wrote in the dissent, the only thing that changed on the court was the — the only thing that changed was the makeup of the court. So what we have is a court who wants to change the law. How are we in Wisconsin supposed to know what the law is if three years after a decision they rule 180 degrees the other way?

Frederica Freyberg:

Do you feel like recusal rules need to be stricter?

Jill Karofsky:

Absol–I think we need to have a recusal rule. We don’t have a recusal rule. Yes. We need a rule. It’s what’s fair to voters in this state. It’s what’s fair to candidates in the state. It’s what’s fair to judges and justices in the state. And the Wisconsin Supreme Court had the chance to craft a clear recusal rule when Dan Kelly was on the court and they didn’t even hold a hearing to gather information to be able to craft a rule.

Frederica Freyberg:

You are quoted as saying that we need to reform the criminal justice system in Wisconsin with an eye toward social justice? How so?

Jill Karofsky:

I don’t think anyone who has been on the front lines of the justice system like I have and I’m the only one in this race who has spent most of their career on the front lines of our justice system. I don’t think you can be there without thinking we need to reform our criminal justice system. And I think that the first thing we need to do is we need to first of all, admit that there’s a problem. And we do have a problem. We have a problem when it comes to racial disparity in our criminal justice system. We have a problem in Wisconsin with mass incarceration. The second thing is, as a judge, what I can do is to take steps to try to mitigate that problem. And I do it in my courtroom by making sure I’m diverting people to treatment courts: OWI treatment court, drug treatment court, veterans’ treatment court. We have a program in Dane County where people can do community service instead of having to pay a fine or go to jail and I refer people there every opportunity I have. The third thing that we can do is that I can’t make policy. I’m not–I don’t make policy as a judge. I certainly wouldn’t make policy as a state Supreme Court justice. But I can tell the policymakers, I can tell the legislators, what I’m seeing to inform their decisions.

Frederica Freyberg:

Does this make you soft on crime?

Jill Karofsky:

I don’t know how anyone could think that I’m soft on crime. I — what I do in my courtroom is I follow the rule of law every day. And if you look at decisions that I have made, you will see a judge who, when I’m sentencing people, relies on the sentencing factors in the state of Wisconsin: the severity of the crime, the protecting the public, the character and rehabilitation needs of the offender. I balance all of those and that is how I come to a sentence every single time I have to do that.

Frederica Freyberg:

Justice Kelly was endorsed this week by President Trump. What’s your reaction to that?

Jill Karofsky:

I think President Trump wants Dan Kelly to be on the Wisconsin Supreme Court because if and when there is litigation in the November election, he will have Dan Kelly on the court and we know based on Dan Kelly’s track record of always ruling for Republicans, always ruling for right wing special interests how he is going to rule in that case.

Frederica Freyberg:

Do you think that the date of the presidential primary falling on the same date as the general election for the State Supreme Court helps or hurts you in terms of interest and turnout?

Jill Karofsky:

I think that having — that getting people to the polls no matter what race you’re in is hugely, hugely important. Our job in this race is to make sure that when people go to the polls on April 7th that they vote all the way through that ballot, that they vote for president, that they vote for Supreme Court, that they vote for all their local elections and court of appeals if that’s on the ballot for them as well. That’s our job in this election, to make sure that we get people to the polls and that they vote for Jill Karofsky for Supreme Court.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Judge Karofsky, thanks very much.

Jill Karofsky:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now for an update on fish and water contamination in Dane County. The State Departments of Natural Resources and Health Services are issuing an advisory for fish consumption in two Madison area waterways. The advisory warns anglers about rising PFAS chemical levels in Starkweather Creek and Lake Monona. The agencies recommend limiting carp, bass, pike, walleye and perch to no more than one meal per month and limiting bluegill to no more than once per week. PFAS are manmade chemicals found in items ranging from fast food wrappers to firefighting foam. Health risks associated with PFAS increase with the amount of fish consumed. The DNR and Health Services are working to develop PFAS standards for groundwater, drinking water and surface water statewide.

Finally tonight, a look ahead to next week. On Wednesday night, tune in for Governor Tony Evers’ State of the State Address. I’ll co-anchor coverage of the address with Wisconsin Public Radio’s Shawn Johnson starting at 7:00 p.m. That’s live from the state Capitol next Wednesday night. That’s all for tonight’s program. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a great weekend.

Announcer:

For more “Here & Now” 2020 election coverage, go to PBS.org and click on news. Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.