Announcer:

The following program is part of our “Here and Now” 2018 Wisconsin Vote election coverage.

Frederica Freyberg:

Im Frederica Freyberg. Tonight, on “Here and Now,” the state supreme court hears why appointed public defenders need a raise. CWD prions are discovered in the state’s soil. A new survey shows Wisconsin is the hardest-drinking state in the nation. And how gender may impact the results of the fall elections. It’s “Here and Now” for May 18.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here and Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.

Frederica Freyberg:

In our first look tonight, Wisconsin pays appointed public defenders the lowest rate in the nation, at $40 an hour. This week, attorneys and judges across the state told the Wisconsin Supreme Court the low pay has created a constitutional crisis. In some cases indigent defendants are sitting in jail because there’s no one to represent them. The sixth amendment to the U.S. constitution requires the right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions. Lawyers petitioned the court to raise the rate for court-appointed lawyers to $100 an hour, hoping to match that rate for private attorneys doing public defender work. After the hearing the high court approved raising the rate to court-appointed lawyers to $100 per hour. One of the co-authors of the petition, Milwaukee attorney John Birdsall, told the justices it is within their authority to “save the system.” He joins us from Milwaukee and thanks for doing so.

John Birdsall:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

So what’s your reaction to the fact that the court did decide to raise the rate for court-appointed attorneys?

John Birdsall:

Well, it’s a partial victory. It wasn’t everything we asked for. We asked specifically for that, but in addition we wanted the court to make a finding that anything below that $100 rate for the Supreme Court rule would be unreasonable and specifically addressing the statutory rate that the public defender’s office is required to pay attorneys, which is $40 an hour.

Frederica Freyberg:

Why is that statutory rate so low?

John Birdsall:

Well, it was set in 1977, when they created the agency, the public defender agency, and they moved it from the supreme court over to the executive branch and they set it at $35 an hour in 1977. If you extrapolate that to today’s dollars, that’s almost $200 an hour. So what we’re asking for is something to basically track inflation. The federal government when they hire public defenders, court-appointed public defenders, they pay $140 an hour. And most states are in the either close to $100 or around the $90 level. So Wisconsin is literally the lowest in the country.

Frederica Freyberg:

What has that meant for indigent defendants, when state employee public defenders have to appoint private lawyers at that $40 rate because of conflict of interest or other inability to represent them?

John Birdsall:

Well, first of all, 40% of all the SPD cases are handled by assigned counsel in Wisconsin. That’s 58,000 cases a year. So what it means for the $40 an hour rate is that a lot of attorneys are declining to take these cases anymore and it’s throwing the system into disarray all over the state. And that includes up in rural areas, up in the Bayfield, Ashland area, down in La Crosse, up in Marathon, even in Milwaukee, where they can’t find people for weeks and weeks and months and months and people sit in jail and victims have to keep coming back to court. The county, of course, has to house the people in the jail. People lose their jobs. It’s really reaching not just a crisis level constitutionally, but a systemic breakdown is impending in Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, justices who heard your petition agreed that the rate is abysmal, but seemed reluctant to legislate much less budget from the bench. What about that concern on their part?

John Birdsall:

Well, my argument to the court — and I understand the view that we have a separation of powers doctrine and they don’t want to impose their will on the legislature. But my argument, at least, to them was that we actually have a shared authority doctrine in Wisconsin. So in the area of judicial court appointments — and the court recognized that in 1995 in a major decision that they handed down. And I reminded them of that, that we have a less of a separation of powers issue rather in Wisconsin. Rather, a coordinated powers issue in Wisconsin. So what — the bottom line is that the court is ultimately responsible for the effective and efficient operation of the court system. And with the legislature literally bleeding out the public defense system, they’re making it impossible. So at $40 an hour, the legislature has basically taken away a large tool that the court needs to run the court system.

Frederica Freyberg:

So if the court, however, did rule that they will raise the rate for all other kind of court-appointed lawyers, does that bode well, in your mind, for this next piece that you and others are so concerned about, that being the appointed public defender rate of pay?

John Birdsall:

Well, if I had to predict, the cost of the new $100 an hour rate is going to fall on the counties, which they’re going to view, I think correctly so, as an unfunded mandate. So in essence the court is directing the payment of funds and they’re just placing it on counties rather than on state taxpayers. At the end of the day, though, somebody’s going to have to raise that rate to avoid the system literally shutting down. And I think that the counties are now going to be coming to the legislature and saying you have to address this issue because we can’t afford to fund this when it’s really the state’s responsibility. That’s what I think’s going to happen.

Frederica Freyberg:

And the cost, I understand it, of this raising the rate for court-appointed attorneys would be $32 million a year?

John Birdsall:

Approximately, yes.

Frederica Freyberg:

And who are these court-appointed attorneys compared to the public defender-appointed attorneys?

John Birdsall:

Well, they’re oftentimes the same people. But the public defender’s office interviews everybody who’s accused of a crime who claims to be indigent. And so either — and 60% of those cases are handled by staff public defenders as part of the agency. The rest are sent to private bar lawyers. If — two issues have to be addressed. One is if the person doesn’t qualify for a public defender appointment, then — and they’re still too poor to afford a lawyer, then the court will appoint one at the new rate. Or in some of these counties that are having the dire needs up north in particular, attorneys will refuse to do public defender appointments. They’ll wait for the court to appoint them at the higher rate, which just makes economic sense.

Frederica Freyberg:

Yeah. We need to leave it there. But thanks very much for your explanation and for giving us the news that the state supreme court actually did rule to raise the $70 rate. John Birdsall out of Milwaukee, thanks very much.

John Birdsall:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

Was it just Hillary or are voters actually biased against female presidential candidates? What about bias against women running for lower office like say governor? The Elections Research Center at UW-Madison has some answers after conducting surveys to find out. Political Science Professor and Director of the Center Barry Burden is here. Thanks very much for being here.

Barry Burden:

Glad to be here.

Frederica Freyberg:

So as to that question, was it just Hillary or what did your research show about women running for president?

Barry Burden:

It was not just Hillary. She had some particular attributes that may have helped or hurt her. But we found in a national experiment that we did in a national survey that female presidential candidates suffer a bias of about two percentage points. They’re likely to get that much less of the vote than men who are equally qualified.

Frederica Freyberg:

And why?

Barry Burden:

That we’re not quite sure about. We have some clues by comparing the presidential race to other offices. We’ve done the same experiment for men and women running for Congress, running for governor, running for state legislature. We find the bias against women only in the presidential race. It might be that there are some unique things about the presidency that make it different. It’s after all is the national office. It’s the commander-in-chief. It’s a role that has a unique place in national security and foreign policy. But in our experiments we actually show voters hypothetical female candidates who are strong in national security or have hawkish positions on defense and they are also biased against. So we think the likely story has more to do with the experience that people have with women actually in office in Congress, governorships and state legislature compared to the presidency, where a voter really has to imagine what would it be like to have a woman president. Hasn’t happened. So that causes some uncertainty at least for some voters and causes them to shy away.

Frederica Freyberg:

This is being described as the year of the woman, right, in congressional races. Again, as you’re saying there’s familiarity among voters with women running for that office.

Barry Burden:

Thats right. When we presented voters in our surveys with two congressional candidates, there was no bias for or against a female candidate relative to a male. Actually in state races, in governors races, in state legislative races, we found that there was a bias in favor of the female candidate. So depending on the level of government you’re talking about, how men and women fare differs.

Frederica Freyberg:

What is that about, the bias in favor of female candidates at the state legislative or gubernatorial level?

Barry Burden:

Well, theres one group in particular that moves around in our surveys depending on the office and that’s independents. In presidential elections, it’s actually independents who show the biggest bias against female candidates. And we reason it’s because they don’t have partisanship as a crutch or cue that they can use that would guarantee them what the person in office would do.

Frederica Freyberg:

Describe that a little bit more. How does the party affiliation offer what you call insurance?

Barry Burden:

Well, party affiliation is the best guide to what a candidate would do in office. It’s one thing that’s actually provided on the ballot in most cases. You know whether the person is a D or a R. Many voters have a sense of being democrats or republicans. If you’re a republican and there’s a republican candidate on the ballet, that’s the easiest choice to make. It’s a pretty good guide to the hope that candidate will fulfill the things you’d like them to do. But for independent voters, they don’t have that kind of insurance as to what a person would do in office and so they have to rely on other kinds of shortcuts or what we call heuristics and the sex or race of the candidate would be one of those. So it’s actually independents who respond most to a female candidate in a negative way in presidential races, but actually swing and have the biggest positive response in gubernatorial and state legislative races.

Frederica Freyberg:

What kind of reaction are you getting to this research?

Barry Burden:

I think a lot of people are interested in the Hillary Clinton aspect of it. She lost the presidential race by–well she actually won the popular vote but lost in a few key states by small amounts. Our research suggests there’s enough bias present in the electorate that it could have flipped that election. That said, we do try to control in our study for attitudes toward Hillary specifically. And even accounting for that there’s still a bias against a female candidate running for president.

Frederica Freyberg:

You talk about these controls you built into your research. How different were the methods that you used in these surveys compared to how people have done it previously?

Barry Burden:

A lot of previous studies, quite naturally, looked at real elections. They’d find contests where a man and a woman had run against one another and see how they fared over a bunch of races. But it turns out that’s not the right way to do it because the women who end up running for office are just different from the men who do and from the women who don’t. Women self-select themselves out of running for office more than men do. So the women who show up are often more qualified than the men they face. So if we found, for example, in real elections that men and women fared equally, it might be that the women are actually better candidates, more qualified, have more experience but there’s a slight bias against them and those things offset. So we felt as though we needed to do an experiment where we presented voters with hypothetical candidates. We varied their attributes, their age, their background, their experience and so on, to see the pure effect of the gender of the candidate.

Frederica Freyberg:

Barry Burden, thanks very much.

Barry Burden:

Thanks.

Frederica Freyberg:

To health news and proof that a number one ranking is not always a good thing. A survey released this week in U.S.A. Today ranks Wisconsin as the number one drunkest state in the nation. The study examines excessive drinking, which according to the CDC, is defined as four or more drinks on a single occasion for women and five or more for men. The CDC reports that 18% of American adults regularly consume unhealthy amounts of alcohol. In Wisconsin, that number is 26.2%. It’s no wonder that seven of the top ten drunkest cities in the U.S. are in Wisconsin, including the top four. Green Bay is the nation’s hardest-drinking city, where the excessive drinking rate tops even the state average at 26.5%. Eau Claire is the second hardest-drinking city in the country, with a 26.2% excessive drinking rate. Appleton comes in at number three, also with 26.2%. Some explain Madisons number four ranking due to a large college population. The Madison rate is 25.9%. Wisconsin gets a reprieve at the number five slot. That’s reserved for Fargo, North Dakota, which overdrinks at a 25.2% rate. Oshkosh brings Wisconsin back to the mix at number six. That’s where 24.5% are excessive drinkers. The number seven and eight drunkest places are Missoula, Montana and Grand Forks, North Dakota. The top ten is rounded out with Wisconsin cities, Wausau at number nine and La Crosse at number ten. Year after year, Wisconsin takes the lead in binge drinking. The popular explanation? Everything from our history of beer-making to lax drunk driving laws and number of bars and liquor licenses, even allowing children to drink in bars with their parents’ permission. But what do the experts say causes Wisconsinites to drink to excess to the extent that no other state keeps pace? We talk with Jim Pearson, clinical team leader at Journey Mental Health in Madison, a service provider in Dane County. Thanks very much for being here.

Jim Pearson:

Thank you for inviting me.

Frederica Freyberg:

So when you see these numbers again, what’s your reaction?

Jim Pearson:

Well, I think it points to, again, just acceptance and a culture in Wisconsin that fun equals drinking. You see in many of the festivals that happen in Wisconsin and especially in college towns, where it just becomes synonymous. If you’re going to do something on a weekend, alcohol is involved.

Frederica Freyberg:

What are your thoughts on whether or not there’s kind of a connection to our brewery culture going way back to the 1800s and our drinking behavior?

Jim Pearson:

Well, that has been a story Wisconsin has told itself for a number of years. And so it doesn’t matter how true it is or not at this point. It just exists. And because of that, there is just a long-term connection to that that many people just accept that it’s fact.

Frederica Freyberg:

I was reading that some ten years ago, that UW had a hefty grant from the CDC to help curb binge drinking. Why don’t these efforts work?

Jim Pearson:

Well, I don’t know exactly where that grant money went to, but I can say that if you actually look at the stats, that binge drinking among high school students has actually declined, but among adults it has increased, and that’s concerning because those are the individuals that are most likely to be on the road and putting us and others at risk when they are doing that.

Frederica Freyberg:

What can be done in your estimation?

Jim Pearson:

Many of the efforts that they started, and maybe it was even that grant that helped promote it initially, was trying to promote research that said that if we increase alcohol taxes, that that can have a significant impact. And other states have done this, which is why Wisconsin remains on the top of these lists. And beer tax has not changed since 1969. So next year will be 50 years of no change to that excise tax. And other states are just surpassing us in this and actually taking concrete, research-based steps that can have an impact.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, in your practice is alcohol the most prevalent addiction even as this state, as others do, are grappling with opioids?

Jim Pearson:

Well, Journey has been around for 70 years. It has 28 different programs. If we look at the spectrum of all those programs, yes, alcohol is probably the number one that people are most struggling with in their use.

Frederica Freyberg:

And yet you suggested, too, that there’s kind of a relationship between people trying to get off opioids and then entering back into the culture of drinking in Wisconsin. What is that?

Jim Pearson:

Yeah. You can imagine. So in our drug court program, over 90% present with an opioid use disorder and we’re successful at connecting them to treatment and getting them really started in their recovery. But living in a culture such as Wisconsin, where drinking is just a part of everything, they really do struggle with that connection of now I need to address my alcohol use. Or maybe I can have a drink. They just question that. And it starts out maybe they can at the beginning. But as their drinking progresses and leads to poor choices or decisions they later regret, they run back right into their opioid addiction. And unfortunately we hear that time and time again. In our program we do our best to catch it early and address it. But then they have to come to some acceptance of that themselves, too.

Frederica Freyberg:

Okay. Jim Pearson, thanks very much.

Jim Pearson:

Thank you very much for your time.

Frederica Freyberg:

In environmental news, UW-Madison scientists have discovered chronic wasting disease prions in soil and water where deer congregate. According to a lead researcher in the discovery, it’s the first time the existence of prions in soil has been demonstrated. The discovery coincides with Governor Scott Walker’s new emergency rules that include requiring reinforced fencing around deer farms, banning the movement of live deer from deer farms in CWD-affected counties and a ban on moving whole deer carcasses from such counties. But prions in soil and water? Could that be what has helped CWD spread to affect 53 of Wisconsins 72 counties? UW-Madison Professor of Soil Science, Joel Pedersen, helped lead the research. He joins us now. Thanks for being here.

Joel Pedersen:

Good to be with you.

Frederica Freyberg:

So as to that question, could CWD prions in the soil be an additional cause for the spread of CWD?

Joel Pedersen:

We and others have for many years hypothesized that environmental routes of transmission such as via soil and water may contribute to CWD epidemics. The relative importance of environmental routes versus direct contact between an infected animal and unaffected animal is not clear.

Frederica Freyberg:

So how would you describe, though, this discovery made on the part of yourself and others?

Joel Pedersen:

Well, as you said, it’s the first time that prions have been discovered in naturally-contaminated soils. We found them at sites where deer congregate. Whether they are at sufficiently high concentrations to cause transmission and contribute to epidemics is not clear at this time.

Frederica Freyberg:

Further research is ongoing on this, though, on your part and others across the country?

Joel Pedersen:

Yes.

Frederica Freyberg:

Yeah. And so these mineral licks, where deer congregate, would the same kind of numbers of deer congregate at feeding or baiting sites and cause the same kind of prions to enter the soil?

Joel Pedersen:

Certainly any area where deer congregate has a potential of shedding prions into the environment. We are particularly interested in mineral licks because these are locations where deer actually consume soil, so the medium onto which they would shed the prions.

Frederica Freyberg:

So once the prions get into the soil, what happens to them then? I mean, are they washed away or washed into groundwater or…

Joel Pedersen:

Research — excuse me. Research conducted in my group indicates that leeching into groundwater is not a significant cause for concern. They certainly could attach to soil particles and be washed off of a site. There was a previous report of prions in a water sample in Colorado in a watershed-draining CWD, area with high incidence of CWD. The degradation of prions in soil seems to be rather slow. We don’t have a good sense for how long it would take for them to degrade.

Frederica Freyberg:

And what do scientists know about whether or not if there are these CWD prions in soil, whether that could result in transmission to other animals?

Joel Pedersen:

Theres certainly that potential, but we don’t have any — to my knowledge, no experiments have been done to address that.

Frederica Freyberg:

And what about really the big question, transmission to humans?

Joel Pedersen:

That, of course, is a question on many people’s minds. There is not conclusive evidence that prions could transmit to humans at this time. There is ongoing work in that effort. And there is ongoing work in trying to understand that, both in the National Institutes of Health and at universities.

Frederica Freyberg:

Because people really are kind of starting to sound the alarm on that, aren’t they?

Joel Pedersen:

I don’t think that — again, we don’t have any definitive proof of transmission to humans. And I hope to learn more about this next week when Im at a prion meeting where I think that some results that are relevant to this question will be reported.

Frederica Freyberg:

Well be looking for that as well. What kind of reaction have you had to this discovery from policymakers or regulators here in Wisconsin or elsewhere?

Joel Pedersen:

Some interest but I haven’t had much contact with them.

Frederica Freyberg:

Given the results of this research, what do you think should be done to limit these kinds of congregations of deer?

Joel Pedersen:

Well, certainly it seems that practices that cause deer to congregate should be revisited in terms of whether we should regulate that or not. Our study, while showing that prions are present in such places, again, does not answer the question about whether transmission is significant at those locations.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Joel Pedersen, thanks very much.

Joel Pedersen:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

Even though the school year is just wrapping up for the summer, we take a quick look ahead to next year. Wisconsin parents will get a break ahead of the fall. The $100 per-child tax rebate that the governor touted in his State of the State address was rolled out this week. After filling out an online form, parents will either be mailed a check or receive a direct deposit of $100 for each child. This rebate was announced in conjunction with an August sales tax holiday in an effort to help parents afford school-related items. The window to apply for the rebate is open now through July 2. And that is our program for tonight. Next week we begin our series of interviews with the democrats running in the primary for governor. Kelda Roys will be here. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a great weekend.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here and Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.

For more information on “Here and Now’s” 2018 election coverage, go to WisconsinVote.org.