Here & Now

Here & Now for January 24, 2020

Announcer:

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

Tony Evers:

We can choose to re-litigate past political trust tussles or we can choose to transcend animosity to rise and greet the problems before us.

Roger Roth:

Listening to Madison elites while ignoring the rest of Wisconsin isn’t a recipe for success.

Frederica Freyberg:

Taking a stab at bipartisanship proves hard in a divided government. More tonight on reaction to Governor Tony Evers’ State of the State Address. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” Wisconsin Public Radio’s Shawn Johnson and I break down the politics of the State of the State. Then a closer look at some of the policy proposed in the speech. We’ll start with his call to create a new People’s Map Redistricting Commission. After that, we’ll consider the proposal that funds mental health services for farmers. And a look ahead to state Capitol work on the issue of homelessness. It’s “Here & Now” for January 24.

Announcer:

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

Frederica Freyberg:

A first look tonight at action by way of executive orders that the Governor Tony Evers announced during his State of the State Address this week. Action including Evers’ call for a special session of the legislature next week to take up a package of bills on rural economies and farming. Among the eight bills, a call to create the Wisconsin Initiative for Dairy Exports, creating a regional mental health program for rural communities, an issue we will address later in this program, and a bill to connect farmers’ food production to universities, hospitals, and businesses. Evers also announced he’ll sign an executive order creating a nonpartisan redistricting commission. Again, more specifics on that to come in a moment. But first, we check in with WPR Capital Bureau Chief Shawn Johnson to discuss governing in this divided government. Thanks a lot for being here.

Shawn Johnson:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

So meanwhile, Speaker Robin Vos says they won’t be on the floor next week, but the bills can go through committee. Is this kind of tantamount to putting the skids on the governor’s call for a special session?

Shawn Johnson:

I think the way Republicans deal with the governor’s call for a special session is still kind of an open question. Just because they’re not on the floor next week doesn’t mean that they are killing these bills. You know, they could still come into special session. They could still deal with these at a later time. The thing with special sessions is the governor can call them. The legislature doesn’t really have to follow them. They can gavel in and gavel out.

Frederica Freyberg:

We’ve seen that.

Shawn Johnson:

I mean, that’s — they’ve done that on a previous session. It’s hard to imagine them doing that quite so quickly when it comes to dairy, you know. Such an important issue in this year in particular, and an election year, and when it’s becoming an issue. I imagine that they’re going to give it more attention than that. But as for the fate of these bills that the governor is introducing, we don’t know yet what’s going to happen there.

Frederica Freyberg:

As we listened to the governor’s address, you pointed out the executive order is one way that the governor can exert his will or can he, really?

Shawn Johnson:

He can. It’s just a matter of like what — what comes of it. An executive order is not law. So anything done by an executive order does not have kind of that staying power that passing a bill and signing it into law will have. But if you look at some of the issues that the governor has tried to get accomplished, he tried to include them in his budget. They were taken out by Republicans. He has supported Democratic efforts to introduce them as stand-alone bills. That hasn’t gone so well for him. So he has found some issues here where he is going to introduce an executive order and you know, maybe create a study commission or special committee, something like that. It’s an action that he can take without having to have the legislatures’ okay. Just not a law.

Frederica Freyberg:

Let’s take a listen to what Speaker Robin Vos said about working together with the governor.

Robin Vos:

Webster’s dictionary defines bipartisan as marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties. It actually requires people sitting down, compromising, in a give and take, that we have not seen from the Evers administration even with the proposal they put out this week on vaping which should be easy bipartisan. Something that have be a lay-up. They put it out a partisan way. Having no discussions with anyone in the legislature, only talking to themselves and Democrat legislators, putting it out and calling it bipartisan. That’s not the reality.

Frederica Freyberg:

The blame game over bipartisanship, as we even saw evidence during the State of the State Address, where majority Republicans didn’t stand and applaud. There was this kind of standing up and applauding and sitting down on that side of the aisle. Even for that call for a special session around agriculture issues.

Shawn Johnson:

Yeah. The whole standing, sitting thing when — depending on which party is giving the address is — has been very pronounced at speeches like this for a while. That’s not new. And maybe — it maybe looks different depending on the issue though. I feel like you know, Republicans and Democrats kind of follow those cues pretty closely.

Frederica Freyberg:

Yes.

Shawn Johnson:

But on agriculture, you may see some of those Republicans who sat and didn’t applaud supporting these bills. You heard after the speech, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald saying pretty clearly they were open to what the governor was proposing when it comes to agriculture, when it comes to dairy. It is sort of — sort of weird, I think, if you watch these speeches. On tax cuts, there was a WisPolitics reporter that pointed out the governor is touting these tax cuts that he signed in his budget. Democrats are applauding. They didn’t vote for the budget. Republicans are not applauding. You know, they passed the budget. They passed the tax cuts. So that’s sort of the absurdity of the whole applause game when you watch the State of the State speech.

Frederica Freyberg:

Speaking of taxes and spending, the special session bill on agriculture I understand, appropriations of about $8,500,000. Meanwhile the state just learned that they have $818,000,000 in tax collections that they didn’t necessarily expect. Do we expect this then to go that same road whereby the Republicans would like to give that $818,000,000 back to taxpayers and Democrats say, well, let’s use some of it to spend on some of these programs that we need to spend money on?

Shawn Johnson:

It is like you’ve watched this debate play out before. I would say within the hour you had plenty of competing proposals on how to use this money. And that was the pattern that it followed. I mean you had Republicans calling for a tax cut. Senator Fitzgerald probably most clearly, loudly, he’s also running for Congress. And that is also a factor in this. You have a surplus in an election year. When that happens, and you’ve got a few months left to go in the legislative session, you are going to hear these familiar arguments.

Frederica Freyberg:

Let’s talk about another executive order that the governor put out there to create a nonpartisan commission on redistricting. How would that work in a Republican legislature that does not appear to have interest in that?

Shawn Johnson:

Yeah, this is one of those where the governor wanted to create this nonpartisan system of redistricting like they have in Iowa. He tried to do that as part of his budget. It was taken out. He supported a bill to do that. It’s not going anywhere. So this is an executive order and we established, this is not law, right? Whatever this commission comes up with is not going to be the redistricting process. But it could be kind of a symbolic gesture, and it could be potentially used in court. You know, if we have — when the map is redrawn for — you know, after the next census, in the next session, if you have a Republican legislature and the Democratic governor, they’re probably not going to agree on new political boundaries for the next decade. So it’s gotta go to court in that situation. What’s one thing that a court can consider? A court could consider a map that was drawn by this commission depending on what it looks like and who’s on the commission. It could be a factor, you know.

Frederica Freyberg:

Interesting point. Shawn Johnson, thanks very much.

Shawn Johnson:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

In tonight’s closer look, another piece of action from the State of the State Address. Governor Evers says he will sign an executive order to create a nonpartisan redistricting commission, which will draw what he calls the people’s maps.

Tony Evers:

A nonpartisan redistricting commission will consist of the people of our state, not the elected officials, not lobbyists, not high-paid consultants. The people’s map commission will visit every Congressional district, hear directly from folks across our state, and draw fair, impartial maps for the legislature to take up next year.

[applause]

Frederica Freyberg:

For some insight on the challenges ahead for the governor’s new redistricting commission, we turn to a national authority and expert witness, including in Wisconsin’s case. Ken Mayer, professor of political science at UW-Madison. And thanks very much for being here.

Ken Mayer:

Good to be with you.

Frederica Freyberg:

What was your reaction when you heard that from the governor?

Ken Mayer:

Well, this is a symbolic attempt by the governor to create an alternative proposal. It’s a little different than what he proposed last year, which is to create a formal statutory process that would generate a map that the legislature would have to consider. This is more of a blue ribbon commission. The details of which we don’t actually know just yet. But the idea would be to create an alternative map proposal that could be lined up against whatever the legislature put together. So you’re looking at a proposal and then an alternative to that proposal.

Frederica Freyberg:

Here’s what Senate Majority Republican Leader Scott Fitzgerald said about this. He says the governor proposed something he believes to be unconstitutional, saying he knows the legislature has the responsibility per the Constitution to not only draw the maps but the Congressional maps as well. What about that?

Ken Mayer:

Well, there’s no question that the Wisconsin Constitution places authority to draw the maps with the legislature. And even the nonpartisan statutory commission that the governor proposed last year would create a proposal that the legislature would have to enact. And the blue ribbon commission is one step back from that. It’s simply creating an alternative with presumably the hope and expectation that it might generate some public pressure, so that legislators would have an opportunity or maybe an incentive to reconsider what they were doing. I don’t think it’s true in any sense that this is an unconstitutional use of [unintelligible] of legislative powers just creating a different map that the legislature might look at.

Frederica Freyberg:

So other laws wouldn’t have to be enacted to have a commission draw an impartial map?

Ken Mayer:

No, the governor, as governors do and political executives do in a lot of places, the 1990s Governor Thompson created a blue ribbon commission on campaign refinance reform. It’s a very common technique for an executive to try to highlight an issue to generate public support or in this case probably to focus public support. But I don’t think there’s any meaningful expectation that this would create a proposal that anybody would insist with some teeth that the legislature would have to consider.

Frederica Freyberg:

Let’s take a look at what the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce had to say about the governor’s plan. They tweeted out saying, complain all you want about so-called gerrymandering. The reality is that voters outside Dane and Milwaukee vote for Republicans, saying they’d love to see how you divide this map into 99 equal population districts without a GOP majority. What’s your response to that?

Ken Mayer:

That’s an argument that was made in the Wisconsin litigation that the partisan imbalance, the fact that in years that Republicans actually got a minority of the statewide vote, would actually get much more than a majority of seats- 61, 62, 63 seats. And the argument is it’s just a consequence of how people are sorted. The Democrats are concentrated in cities, Milwaukee, Madison, Eau Claire, Superior. And Republicans are more efficiently distributed. There’s a grain of truth in that, that Wisconsin — that Democrats tend to — or probably the way to phrase it is that cities which have larger populations tend to be more Democratic. But the notion that that explains the entire scope of the — of the partisan effect of the gerrymandering — I mean it’s ludicrous that the legislature admitted in court that they were trying to create the maximum party advantage, that if you look at the map and district after district, the Democrats are not only packed put also cracked. So that they are situated in districts that have 53, 55, 57% Republicans. So it’s really a rhetorical argument that simply doesn’t reflect the reality of what the effect of geographic sorting might be.

Frederica Freyberg:

What are the best models for nonpartisan commissions drawing maps?

Ken Mayer:

That’s the question, isn’t it? That this is a partisan process. I think one of the models that people are looking at is Iowa, where in Iowa it’s a state agency that looks at — looks at solely population. They are not permitted to look at any election returns. They’re not permitted to look at where incumbents live. There are some specific requirements in Iowa, particularly how congressional districts have to be, have to be drawn. This agency, sort of their equivalent of the Legislature Technology Services Bureau here. It draws a map. The map goes to the legislature and the legislature can either pass it or not pass it. If they don’t pass it, it goes back to, for revisions. But every decade since this system has been created, the map has gone through with no litigation, with very little controversy. And so I think that was what the governor was trying to get at last year. But one of the ways that is common is to not allow election returns to be taken into effect — taken into account. And that’s very difficult because you can create a process that says you can’t look at this. But it’s hard not to because the data are there. But there are a number of alternatives to having a legislature drawing the map in a way that is designed to secure maximum party advantage.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. We need to leave it there. Ken Mayer, thanks very much.

Ken Mayer:

Happy to be with you.

Frederica Freyberg:

An inside look now at Governor Evers’ plans to put a new legislative focus on farmers and mental health.

Tony Evers:

Our mental health program will assist farmers in accessing mental health support. They will also help coordinate local and regional peer support programming, and provide confidential one-on-one counseling and assistance to our farmers.

[applause]

Frederica Freyberg:

On Thursday the governor released a package of farm bills that included resources for farmers in need of mental health support. Among other things, the bills would authorize five new positions at the Department of Agriculture to serve as regional agents to assist farmers in accessing mental health services. The agents would oversee regional peer support programs as well as coordinate one-on-one counseling. The bill also increases funding for mental health professional training to better understand farmers’ stress and to help identify the warning signs of suicide. The southwest Wisconsin community action program is a Dodgeville-based nonprofit that does direct outreach to farmers in need of mental health services. The work is largely paid for by a grant from the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Wally Orzechowski is the executive director. Thanks very much for being here.

Wally Orzechowski:

Thank you for inviting me.

Frederica Freyberg:

What’s your reaction to the bills around farmers’ mental health specifically that the governor announced this week?

Wally Orzechowski:

It’s absolutely terrific. I mean we need as many resources as we possibly can. We have a very small grant. It’s a wonderful grant, but it’s a very small grant and we’re using it to interact as best as we can with the farming community and help farmers who are stressed and in the end — you know, some are thinking about and a few have committed suicide, which is absolutely horrible for them and for those around them, their families. And so the more resources we have, the better. And I think we have some good ideas. We’re doing outreach. We’re working with farmers. But it’s just the tip of the iceberg. We really need to do much more. So those resources are going to be very well received.

Frederica Freyberg:

And you get the sense that those resources will kind of trickle down to the kinds of programming that you do?

Wally Orzechowski:

Yeah. We coordinate with everybody. And we’ve had conversations with DATCP and their farm bureau in the past about working together. And so, yeah, some of it may trickle down to organizations like ours, but more importantly, it’s just a matter of coordination.

Frederica Freyberg:

You’ve been on the front lines of this problem. How have you seen the need for mental health care among farmers increase?

Wally Orzechowski:

It’s because of the economic issues that they’re facing. Farming has always been a wonderful but at the same time stressful occupation. But with the overproduction of milk and the trade wars and the bad weather and a whole number of other factors, it’s really increased the stress level. And so many farms, I think we lost like 700 farms a year in 2018. I don’t know what the ’19 numbers are. And in addition to that, some of them are going into foreclosure or bankruptcy or are threatened with that. Farmers are losing money. It’s just created this horrible, horrible perfect storm that these farmers are going through.

Frederica Freyberg:

What kinds of words describe these farmers’ despair that you hear from them?

Wally Orzechowski:

Despair, stress. Not knowing what to do. I mean, farmers are very independent, tough, stoic group. And in that respect, it’s — it helps them in their occupations but also makes it very hard for them to reach out for services when they’re experiencing this. And whatever we’re doing, you know, we have to work, keeping in mind those cultural and social issues. I think that’s what we started doing and we just need to expand as much as we can.

Frederica Freyberg:

I understand that you kind of bring farmers together because often they feel very isolated.

Wally Orzechowski:

Yeah. Yeah. Well, farming is an isolated occupation. I mean they’re out there working on their farms. They’re not necessary interacting like you and I do, every day and they’re dealing with their issues alone because they fix a tractor or they have a sick calf or whatever it happens to be. They’re very, very independent. And again, I understand why that’s important in that type of occupation, but it also leads to a lot of difficulty in terms of searching out services. They just want to fix it themselves. And for something like this, it’s not — you can’t fix it yourself. You need help.

Frederica Freyberg:

I was reading in reporting done around the kinds of work that you’re doing that you bring farmers together and often these are times they haven’t been talking to each other. And how is that helpful?

Wally Orzechowski:

Well, farmers will talk to farmers. Or they will talk to maybe the milk truck driver, the large animal vet or somebody like that. They’re not going to — I mean they’re not going to walk into a mental health clinic. That’s just not going to happen. They’re lucky if they walk into any type of health clinic for anything. So it really has to be people that they’re comfortable with, people that they trust. And I think we’re getting to the point where we really want the farmers to help the farmers. And so we’re starting to identify some farmers because of their personalities or whoever they happen to be and they’re liked and they’re trusted in their communities. Those are the folks that are really going to be the ones that are going to provide that level of support. There are not enough mental health providers anywhere, including in rural parts of Wisconsin. And so it has to be bubbling up from the community to help the farmers. Now there may be more complicated issues they have to be dealt with by a professional, but in terms of identifying the underlying stress and the possibility of people considering suicide, that really has to come from the communities themselves.

Frederica Freyberg:

What would you tell farmers who might be in a position where they are feeling very depressed and stressed and close to that suicide?

Wally Orzechowski:

Yeah, you’re not alone. You know, there’s others like you who are going through what you’re going through and you don’t have to be out there alone. Reach out, reach out to whether it’s a member of the clergy or your physician or your spouse or whomever it happens to be. There are some resources out there. And sometimes it’s a matter of just talking to the right people. But you do have to reach out. And that’s very difficult. But you’re going to know somebody, whether it’s somebody to come get your milk or somebody who’s going to work with your cattle or whatever it happens to be. You’re going to know somebody and we’re trying to get to those somebodies to really pick out those farmers that are highly stressed because they can tell sometimes by the quality of the farm or what’s going on and then have those conversations and bring them into the world that can help them.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. We really appreciate your work. Wally Orzechowski, thanks very much.

Wally Orzechowski:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

On Tuesday the state Senate unanimously passed one of eight Republican bills addressing homelessness. In tonight’s look ahead, we check in on the remaining legislation that despite bipartisan support is not moving forward.

Clerk:

All members vote in the affirmative. There are 31 ayes. Zero nos.

Marisa Wojcik:

The state Senate’s first floor session of the year Tuesday had hours of debate even for a bill that passed with unanimous bipartisan support. As movement on the issue of homeless funding has proven to be a rocky road. The bill that passed provides a total of $1,000,000 to homeless shelters across Wisconsin and was originally a part of a package of eight Republican bills aimed at curbing homelessness with a variety of measures from emergency to preventive programs.

Jim Steineke:

Really the focus is trying to make an impact on the homelessness problem from beginning to end of the spectrum.

Marisa Wojcik:

State data says that in 2018, there were 22,000 homeless in Wisconsin. And 40% of those were families. The same year the Department of Public Instruction recorded almost 19,000 homeless students in public schools across the state. All eight pieces of legislation passed the Assembly last June with unanimous support, a 99-0 vote. But they now sit in Senate committees, stalled since last fall.

Joe Volk:

The Republican leader of the Senate is not going to bring any bill to the floor that he needs a Democratic votes to pass.

Marisa Wojcik:

Joe Volk, executive director of the Wisconsin Coalition Against Homelessness, says that just a few key Republican Senators opposed the legislation are preventing Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald from bringing them to the Senate floor. He says that the shelter funding passed the Senate Tuesday because many homeless are being left on the winter streets.

Joe Volk:

We’re able to make the case obviously in the very cold season, when it’s minus zero in many parts of the state.

Marisa Wojcik:

Reports say some Republican Senators have concerns about spending more money. The cost of this homeless package would be less than $4 million annually. Far less than what neighboring states spend.

Joe Volk:

You know, Illinois is up to $22 million. Michigan is up to $26 million. Again, Minnesota over $40 million. They are having an impact in those states.

Marisa Wojcik:

The Joint Finance Committee has already set aside the funding for all eight bills.

Jon Erpenbach:

The amount of money that is required in the legislation we’re about to vote on has already been set aside for that particular piece of legislation, nothing else.

Marisa Wojcik:

Because the majority of Republicans support the entire homeless bill package, there’s a disconnect as to why they can’t move it forward.

Alberta Darling:

Just one bill won’t do it. And one discussion on the floor won’t do it. And I hope that in the future, we can have a full court press on this issue of homelessness.

Marisa Wojcik:

For “Here & Now,” I’m Marisa Wojcik.

Frederica Freyberg:

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald says there is still a possibility some of the other homeless bills could reach the Senate floor next month. Democrats laid out their case for impeachment in the U.S. Senate trial of President Donald Trump this week. Republican defense begins over the coming weekend. Wisconsin U.S. Senators are predictably divided on the proceedings so far. Democrat Tammy Baldwin said this today, “The House managers made a powerful, fact-based case with compelling evidence that the president abused his power for personal, political gain and then obstructed Congress. Their presentation raises serious questions about why the White House has withheld critical documents and prevented relevant witnesses from testifying about their firsthand knowledge about President Trump’s actions.” Meanwhile Republican Senator Ron Johnson said, “The House was in a rush to do this impeachment. They did, from my standpoint, a pretty sloppy job. They’re asking us to do what they should have done in a more thorough impeachment inquiry.” You can follow live coverage of the Trump impeachment trial this weekend online with the NewsHour at pbs.org.

We end tonight’s program on a sad note about a huge loss for the PBS family. Long-time journalist Jim Lehrer passed away Thursday at the age of 85. Lehrer served as anchor of the NewsHour for 36 years before retiring in 2011. Lehrer and Robert McNeil founded the program in 1975 following their 1973 coverage of the Senate Watergate hearings on PBS. Lehrer went on to moderate a total of 12 presidential debates, more than any other journalist in history. He received the National Humanities Medal from President Clinton. That is 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.