Announcer:

The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production.

Frederica Freyberg:

A divided Wisconsin Supreme Court has chosen maps drawn by Democratic Governor Tony Evers in the state’s redistricting fight. President Joe Biden delivers his first State of the Union Address, and then visits Wisconsin. Former Supreme Court justice Michael Gableman releases the findings of his highly scrutinized election investigation. And a new poll takes the political temperature of the Wisconsin.

I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” the Wisconsin Supreme Court weighs in on redistricting. Wisconsin election official Meagan Wolfe responds to allegations in Michael Gableman’s latest election report. Charles Franklin shares his latest poll. And the crisis in Ukraine hits close to home for those with friends on the front lines. It’s “Here & Now” for March 4.

Announcer:

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

Frederica Freyberg:

In a win for Democrats, a split Supreme Court Thursday adopted Governor Tony Evers’ voting maps for Wisconsin legislative and congressional boundaries. The maps adhered to the “least change” approach to the current lines the court required. Justice Brian Hagedorn voted with the three liberals on the court, writing the majority opinion. According to the governor, applying an average of six statewide elections since 2016, his maps would elect 44 Democrats and 55 Republicans to the Assembly, 13 Democrats and 20 Republicans to the Senate, and three Democrats and five Republicans to Congress. That’s compared to the Republican map which could make 64 GOP Assembly seat, 22 in the Senate and 6 in Congress. We break it down now with UW-Madison political scientist Barry Burden. Thanks for being here.

Barry Burden:

My pleasure.

Frederica Freyberg:

So it’s declared a significant victory for the Dems. Would you declare that?

Barry Burden:

Well, I would say it’s the least bad option for the Democrats. Just about any map that would be adopted is going to have an advantage for the Republicans built in, and that’s especially true because the court mandated that they were going to only accept maps that had the minimal amount of change to the existing districts and those were, of course, drawn by Republicans 10 years ago and have worked quite well to lock in Republican majorities. So this is about the best the Democrats could hope for, but it still puts them on the defense.

Frederica Freyberg:

So how similar are these maps to the existing GOP maps then?

Barry Burden:

Well, they’re quite similar and that’s why the Evers’ maps were selected over the other options. There were about a half a dozen maps submitted to the Supreme Court. They could have picked any of them or drawn their own maps and they picked Evers’ as the court said, as Hagedorn’s opinion, said because it beat the others on the criterion of keeping as many people in the same districts as they’re in now.

Frederica Freyberg:

Do the Evers’ maps make districts at all more competitive as a whole?

Barry Burden:

Slightly. I think at the congressional level, there are eight congressional districts, the Evers’ maps make it possible for Democrats to win three or maybe four of the eight districts, whereas I think any of the Republican oriented maps would have had probably a 6-2 margin for the GOP, and it makes the Assembly at least within the realm of possibility of Democrats winning back the majority. They would need a really good election cycle for that to happen because the expectation is they probably have in the low to mid 40s out of the 99 seats, but most of the seats are going to be safe in the Assembly, in the state Senate and at the congressional level.

Frederica Freyberg:

Looking at what’s regarded as one of the most competitive congressional districts, the third, Evers’ maps keep Stevens Point in the district whereas the GOP maps remove it. How significant is that in the third?

Barry Burden:

It’s probably essential to keeping it competitive. Stevens Point is an arm that sticks out from the district if you look at the map. That was intentionally added 10 years ago, in part to creation the district just north of it, which had been Sean Duffy’s district, more Republican. It was sort of a deal that had been worked out. Keeping that arm of the district in it, at least gives Democrats the possibility of holding on even though Ron Kind won’t be the incumbent next time around.

Frederica Freyberg:

So the other thing that Evers’ map does is add a seventh Black majority minority Assembly district. Republican legislative leaders said that “Tony Evers drew racially gerrymandered maps behind closed doors with no public input, and dissenting conservative justices regard the Evers’ maps as unconstitutional and fatally flawed.” How salient are these criticisms?

Barry Burden:

Well, all of the maps that were submitted to the court were drawn in secret somewhere. None of them were done out in the public square. So I’m not sure that’s much of a criticism. But the minority on the court was really incensed that they thought the Evers’ maps violated the Voting Rights Act, violated the Constitution by producing these seven bare majority or close to majority Black Assembly districts. I’m not sure that argument will hold but they seem to be hoping that the losers in this case will take an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and try to challenge the maps on the basis of violating either the VRA or the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection. That would be a real showdown, I think, at the Supreme Court level to think about changing, I think standing interpretations of the VRA to say that drawing on the basis of race and the way that Evers did violates the Constitution.

Frederica Freyberg:

And so would that be expected, that this would go up?

Barry Burden:

It’s very unclear. I don’t know whether the losing plaintiffs in the case will think it’s tantalizing enough to try to bring an appeal. I don’t know the U.S. Supreme Court would take it even if the appeal was sent their way? This is a hot issue, a lot of it is actually settled law but it’s something I think some conservatives are interested in revisiting so this will be a decision that gets made over the coming weeks.

Frederica Freyberg:

Notwithstanding that, we know Republicans still hold a majority in these “least change” maps, but does this have implications in this year’s elections?

Barry Burden:

Well, assuming there are no appeals and the decision holds, we now know what the districts will look like. That sets up now decisions by candidates to decide whether they’re going to run. There are a few incumbents in the state legislature who got paired against one another and will have to decide whether they want to face off in the primary or some of them stand down. I think at the congressional level, the third district that we talked about a moment ago is the most interesting of the eight districts. It’s the only open seat in the state. It’s probably the most balanced of the eight districts and it will get a lot of national attention.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Well, we’ll be watching as well. Barry Burden, thank you.

Barry Burden:

Glad to be with you.

Frederica Freyberg:

Burden also says another scenario is for Republicans to use these maps this year and just redraw new ones if and when a Republican becomes governor in 2023.

Also at the Capitol, former Supreme Court justice Michael Gableman this week delivered an interim report on his investigation into the 2020 election. In an hours long hearing, he laid out more than 20 legislative recommendations, including that lawmakers ought to, “take a very hard look at decertifying the election.” This prompted Republican Assembly Majority Leader Jim Steineke to tweet, saying, “handing authority to partisan politicians to determine if election fraud exists would be the end of our republican as we know it.” Decertifying the election has been deemed legally impossible. Gableman also described the private grants made to run the election in the midst of a pandemic as, “election bribery” and called on lawmakers to eliminate the Wisconsin Elections Commission and remove its administrator, a non-partisan position.

Michael Gableman:

Ms. Wolfe should be removed from WEC for cause. She has not been serving the way that she should be serving. She has not been cooperative. She has not been administering these elections in a fair, transparent, and accountable way.

Frederica Freyberg:

What does the administrator of the Elections Commission think about all of this? We ask her. Meagan Wolfe joins us now. Thanks a lot for being here.

Meagan Wolfe:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

So what is your response to Michael Gableman calling for you to be fired?

Meagan Wolfe:

I think a lot of what was said and a lot of what is in this report is just a complete misrepresentation of Wisconsin election law, federal election law, election administration and technology. And I think that the claims were made and the report itself has very minimal utility because of these misrepresentations.

Frederica Freyberg:

At the hearing, Gableman said that grant funding from the Center for Tech and Civic Life, which he calls “Zucker bucks,” were a pretext to unfairly turn out Black vote in Milwaukee. Let’s take a listen to what he said.

Michael Gableman:

In order to win the next election, the Democrats were going to have to go to Milwaukee and turn out the African-American vote. And that’s what this money was for, and that’s the heart of this partisan effort.

Frederica Freyberg:

What is your response to that? Was that illegal?

Meagan Wolfe:

The issue of private grant funding in elections and the acceptance of them by municipalities was an issue that has been decided by multiple courts. I believe there have been three court decisions that have said that the law does not prohibit local election officials from accepting private grant funds.

Frederica Freyberg:

So Gableman also spent a long time during his hearing playing videos of nursing home residents about how they would vote. With them, mostly unable to answer. The point was to say the Elections Commission decision to not allow voting deputies in the nursing homes during the pandemic resulted in ineligible voters illegally casting ballots. What’s your reaction, first of all, to these video presentations during the hearing representative Gableman said of 92,000 people in care facilities across the state.

Meagan Wolfe:

I think we need in order to respond to these to back to the election law, which says that a court has to specifically adjudicate somebody incompetent for voting purposes. So having some type of a guardianship order or even if a family member doesn’t believe that somebody’s capable, unless there is a court order that says somebody is not competent to vote, their right to vote is still in place. And I know these are difficult decisions. I’m certainly — can sympathize with people that are frustrated by the law, but there would need to be a change to the law if there was a desire to see some different measure utilized. There’s no testing that’s given to any voter before they’re able to cast their ballot. There is the law, though, which says that somebody has to be adjudicated by a judge incompetent before their right to vote can be removed.

Frederica Freyberg:

What was it like to see those videos during that hearing of those people in those nursing homes being basically deposed?

Meagan Wolfe:

I felt a little upset watching it because it did feel like those people were being exploited, because again, there’s no test that’s required to be able to cast your ballot. There’s no test for anyone before they’re able to cast their ballot, but there is the law that says somebody has to be adjudicated by a court. Because the right to vote, it’s a sacred right, and that’s taken very seriously, so the law says in order for that right to be removed, there has to be a court order.

Frederica Freyberg:

Meanwhile, the former justice’s investigation has subpoenaed you and others for a private deposition and you are suing over that. Why are you suing?

Meagan Wolfe:

I would be very pleased to talk to the Office of Special Counsel in a public forum. As a matter of fact, I believe it was just last week that I did provide testimony to the Assembly Committee on Elections. And so we remain committed to having these discussions with lawmakers, with the public, about how our election in 2020 was conducted with integrity. But those conversations have to happen in public. Every aspect of elections happens in public, in a public forum, and I don’t believe that this review should be any different.

Frederica Freyberg:

As you just said, you’ve testified many times before the legislature on the matter of the 2020 election. What do you want the public to hear about whether it was conducted illegally or is suspect or the process should be changed?

Meagan Wolfe:

You know, I really encourage everyone to engage with the facts about elections. You have a local election authority in every single city, town and village in Wisconsin. Ask questions, get involved, every aspect of elections is publicly observable. And so you’re able to watch those things, whether it’s testing the voting equipment or counting of the absentee ballots, those are all publicly observable. And I would also note that every decision of the Wisconsin Elections Commission is made in a bipartisan manner and is made in a public forum. So there are really great opportunities here to see how elections are run, to learn more, and I encourage everybody to do that.

Frederica Freyberg:

Meagan Wolfe, thanks very much for joining us.

Meagan Wolfe:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

You wouldn’t know it from listening to the Gableman investigation, but 67% of all registered voters surveyed in Wisconsin are very or somewhat confident the votes were accurately cast and counted in the 2020 election. That’s according to the latest Marquette University Law School poll, which looked at approval ratings, the horse race in the upcoming governor and U.S. Senate elections and issues in the state. Poll Director Charles Franklin joins us now. Thanks for being here, Charles.

Charles Franklin:

Good to be here.

Frederica Freyberg:

So as to who has confidence in the accuracy of the 2020 election, as expected, you see vast partisan splits in that result, right?

Charles Franklin:

There are big differences. Just as sort of a basic way of saying it, it’s been about two thirds of Republicans who were skeptical about the election, but about two thirds of the public at large who were confident in the election. So you have this difficult problem of within the party, a lot of skepticism among Republicans that’s simply not mirrored in the public at large. And so that’s part of the issue with a lot of the conflict within the Republican Party about it right now. We did see a little decline in skepticism among Republicans this month. It had been about 70% last month, or in October, it fell to about 60% this time. So that’s not a lot of movement, but it is a consistent movement and it’s interesting because it goes in the opposite direction from the increased debate in the Capital and in the gubernatorial election.

Frederica Freyberg:

Interesting. Well, meanwhile, looking ahead to the 2022 election and key matchups that we’re watching, your polling shows that in the Republican primary for governor, Republicans and independents who say they will vote in the primary, Rebecca Kleefisch is the choice of 30%, Kevin Nicholson preferred by 8%, Timothy Ramthun is supported by 5% and then 54% say they don’t know. That 54% says it all at this point, doesn’t it?

Charles Franklin:

I think it really does. And you know, for those of us that pay attention to politics day in and day out, year in and year out, it’s maybe a little surprising. But if you look at past primary races this far out, five months out, it’s not at all surprising to find that half have not picked a candidate in that race, and I really wouldn’t expect that number to get a lot lower until we’re getting close to the beginning of the summer at least. It is clear that Kleefisch has a noticeable advantage in this race. But keep your eye on that 54% and understand that a lot could change between now and August.

Frederica Freyberg:

Lots of candidates are lined up to run in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate against Republican Senator Ron Johnson. Your polling here shows Mandela Barnes is supported by 23%, Alex Lasry 13%, Tom Nelson sits at 5%, and Sarah Godlewski is preferred by 3%. Your polling shows Republican and Democratic primary voters are about equally unsure of their primary preferences, plus name recognition of these candidates on both sides seems low for a state so politically focused and hyper partisan. What about that?

Charles Franklin:

Absolutely. And 48% on the Democratic side said they had not made up their minds. By the way, we did ask about all 11 candidates and no one else got more than 2%. I think that it is true that we are very involved in politics, but an awful lot of our involvement is about Democrat versus Republican, and these within-the-party races with candidates that are not household names is more time-consuming for voters to make up their minds. We saw this in 2018 in the gubernatorial primary for the Democrats that Tony Evers eventually won. That was also a big field and a lot of candidates struggled to get known. Finally, this election year is likely to be an intense election year by the time we get to the August primary, but it may take us a while for that to wrap up, including getting to know the names of the candidates too.

Frederica Freyberg:

Let’s take a look at the favorability for Senator Ron Johnson, according to your polling, he’s viewed favorably by 33% of voter, and unfavorably by 45%. 21% saying they haven’t heard enough or don’t know. He’s underwater, though, and has trended down.

Charles Franklin:

Yes, and this is his worst net favorability that we’ve seen since 2013. He’s also down a little bit from in October, when he was at 38 favorable — I’m sorry, from October when he was at 36 favorable, 42 unfavorable so a little downward trend. He really peaked recently in 2019 and has been coming down slowly but fairly steadily and now these numbers. I will remind people that he was also deeply underwater in 2015, before coming back to improve those numbers in ’16 and eventually win the 2016 re-election bid. This is informative numbers, but things can change again.

Frederica Freyberg:

So Tony Evers’ job approval is right side up, 50% approve while 41% do not approve. But you know, while Evers’ job approval is right side up as we said, another question you asked had to do with whether Wisconsin is headed in the right direction or on the wrong track, and 39% of voters there said the state is headed in the right direction while 53% said it was on the wrong track. How do the governor’s job approval numbers square with this right track, wrong track result?

Charles Franklin:

Yeah, that’s right. I think the direction of the state is an indicator of some broad pessimism about the state, but it’s also true about the country. Part of that comes from both sides can blame the other party for why we’re headed in the wrong direction, and I think that’s part of why you can see a difference between these two.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Well, Charles Franklin, thank you very much. Really nice to see you again.

Charles Franklin:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

President Biden’s State of the Union Address this week came as Russia invaded Ukraine. Still, the president wasted no time promoting his domestic agenda with a tour that started in Superior Wednesday. In addition to highlighting funding for infrastructure, Biden spoke to the strength of Ukraine.

Joe Biden:

Putin is now isolated from the world more than ever, and we’ll continue to aid the Ukrainian people as they defend their country and help ease their suffering in the process. When history of this era is written, Ukraine will have left Russia weaker and the rest of the world stronger.

Frederica Freyberg:

What Russia’s unprovoked attack brings for people inside Ukraine and their friends outside its borders is fear and anguish and resolve. Marisa Wojcik visited with a Madison resident born in Kyiv speaking with a close family friend who remains in Ukraine.

Vitaly Demyanchuk:

The rest of attack we can hear, boom, boom, boom.

Marisa Wojcik:

Vitaly Demyanchuk describes the sound of bombs surrounding his city while he continues work at the Kyiv Heart Institute.

Vitaly Demyanchuk:

Hour by hour, we can hear bombing attack, bombing alerts, bombing alert, go to basement, go to basement, go to basement.

Marisa Wojcik:

Vitaly, a heart surgeon and hospital administrator, video chats with his daughter, Polina, living in Sacramento, and his close friend and Madison resident, Gary Tsarovsky.

Vitaly Demyanchuk:

To be a good doctor means to serve people, treat people in any conditions.

Marisa Wojcik:

Do you have weapons and ammunition?

Vitaly Demyanchuk:

No, no, no, no, no, no. Our hospital is absolutely demilitarization zone.

Marisa Wojcik:

The outside of the hospital is guarded by Ukrainian soldiers. Inside, around 300 people, patients, staff and their families, take refuge in the basement.

Vitaly Demyanchuk:

Our resources are limited.

Marisa Wojcik:

The invasion, he says, took them by surprise.

Vitaly Demyanchuk:

We thought that probably it’s just the political games. I didn’t understand what to do. What should I do? I was shocked, truly.

Marisa Wojcik:

Vitaly’s wife and other daughter fled Kyiv just hours before we spoke, to evacuate Ukraine as the bombings kept getting worse.

Vitaly Demyanchuk:

Awful, awful, awful. And catastrophic. It’s catastrophic war, becomes more and more unpredictable and more and more dangerous.

Marisa Wojcik:

But Vitaly has no plans to leave.

Vitaly Demyanchuk:

First of all, I’m a doctor, a doctor. Secondly, I’m an administrator. The captain should leave his ship last.

Marisa Wojcik:

The politics of the past has prepared many Ukrainians to stay and fight.

Vitaly Demyanchuk:

Please remember, 2004, 2014, so we are well prepared. We are well trained. In current situation when Russia have a lot of missiles, ballistic missiles, so we can’t consider any place that’s in Europe safe, without reach.

Polina Demyanchuk:

Sorry, I’m at loss of words, honestly.

Marisa Wojcik:

Polina attended Madison West High School and is now an undergrad at Sacramento State University. Half a world away, she’s worried about her family.

Polina Demyanchuk:

Just, you know, reassure them that it’s going to be okay, but I don’t know if I can even say that because I don’t know. You know, I don’t know if everything’s going to be okay. I only have hope and I think hope has to die last, you know? I always thought my dad was a hero, you know? It’s heartbreaking.

Vitaly Demyanchuk:

Together we are strong.

Polina Demyanchuk:

I know, I know. I know. Ukraine is strong and they’re very — you know, they’re very united right now. They’re not going to give up easily, you know?

Gary Tsarovsky:

I think we’re all encouraged by the fact that the world is united with Ukraine and standing behind Ukraine.

Vitaly Demyanchuk:

[speaking Ukrainian]

Polina Demyanchuk:

My dad is saying that he thinks that all of this, everything that’s happening in Ukraine, what Ukrainians are doing, it’s much bigger than just fighting for their lives.

Vitaly Demyanchuk:

The Ukrainians understood well that freedom is not free.

Frederica Freyberg:

For more on this and other issues affecting Wisconsin, visit our website at PBSwisconsin.org, and then click on the news tab.

That is 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.