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

Frederica Freyberg:
I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” a former state Supreme Court justice considers the Brett Kavanaugh nomination process. After that, Zac Schultz has an inside look at the Brad Schimel/Josh Kaul race for attorney general. And a look at the number of Wisconsin voters removed from the rolls. It’s “Here & Now” for October 5.

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

Frederica Freyberg:
At week’s end, the U.S. Senate vote to confirm the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is on pace to happen this weekend. This follows the culmination of an FBI review and difficult testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Partisans rage on this process to confirm a justice, but what is the more measured take from a jurist who served on our State Supreme Court? We turn to former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske who joins us now in Milwaukee and thanks very much for doing so.

Janine Geske:
I’m happy to do it.

Frederica Freyberg:
Not that either of us were privy to it, but how do you think the FBI investigation helped or didn’t help this process?

Janine Geske:
Well, I think, one, it helped just to slow it down a little bit because emotions were obviously running high. And I think it was an attempt to see if more information couldn’t be gained by at least interviewing a few witnesses. Obviously from the reactions from the parties, they didn’t learn anything new. But meanwhile a lot of witnesses are doing interviews on television, so there’s a lot of extraneous information coming in. Ultimately, I think that the senators that have the tough decision in that final vote, it didn’t help them much and they’re going to have to make a decision whether they think Judge Kavanaugh has the qualifications to be on the court.

Frederica Freyberg:
As you watched the Senate hearing of the testimony and questions for Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh, what were your feelings both as a jurist and a citizen?

Janine Geske:
Well, in watching Dr. Ford, she was, as most people commented, an incredibly compelling witness. She sounded credible. Her answers are consistent with the kinds of answers one would expect from someone who had been assaulted a long time ago. She was very, very believable. In terms of Judge Kavanaugh, you know, I understood his anger, but his rage surprised me. What really surprised me is how disrespectful he was to the Democratic Senators. And that’s something you’d never see in a courtroom. I’m sure he wouldn’t put up with it in a courtroom. And I was surprised at some of the denials of things that happened in high school and in college. I think he would have been much better off to admit that, you know, it was a rough time and that he drank a lot and engaged in some behavior he’s not particularly happy with, rather than the denials that he made, which makes him, mind you, less credible.

Frederica Freyberg:
So what does that say in your mind about his judicial temperament?

Janine Geske:
Well, you know, it’s interesting. You know, I think that it’s difficult based on the evidence to conclude that he committed this sexual assault. And that’s not to take away from Dr. Ford’s testimony. It’s just that it’s so long ago and by the nature of the assault, you know, this isn’t corroboration. But, on the other hand, I think that his what appeared to be rage by Judge Kavanaugh and anger and disrespect was pretty shocking to me. And I think that’s what shocked a lot of people, judges and lawyers around the country, that you wouldn’t expect that from a judge or a judicial candidate. That raised real serious questions as to whether or not he has the kind of decorum and temperament that is appropriate for a very important position on a court.

Frederica Freyberg:
So you say it raised serious questions, but in your mind would he be unqualified to serve?

Janine Geske:
Well, that’s a hard question. You know, I think it’s in the eyes of the beholder. He’s obviously qualified in terms of his background and his studies, and he clearly knows the law, can write the law. And I think we have to give something to him that if you’re wrongfully accused, at least that’s what he says, of these assaults, that you’d get very, very angry about it. And I’m sure it’s been very difficult for his family and himself. It made me uncomfortable. I don’t know if I were in a position of a Senator that I would support him after having seen that. I suspect — I saw he wrote an editorial saying I’m not that way ordinarily and I’m very even-handed judge, I always have been. And I suspect he has. That maybe that can overcome that. But it certainly would give me pause if I had to vote because they’re giving someone a lifetime appointment and whatever he is, you get that for the rest of his life or as long as he wants to be there. And with so many other candidates, that would concern me.

Frederica Freyberg:
You also spoke to the idea that he was disrespectful toward the U.S. Senators during that testimony, but what do you think of the partisan nature of some attacks he really leveled against the Democrats?

Janine Geske:
Well, that was over the line, too. And, you know, it was hand in hand of the disrespectful comments and then talking about being a hit job and terrible things that were done. And then throwing in the Clintons was really shocking. I mean I didn’t expect to have heard that. It really goes to show the hatred he has about some of the Clintons’ activities earlier on in their careers. Well, you know, that was a terrible, terrible time for him, I think compared to his prior interviews, both during the hearings and also interviews on television. He was very measured and thoughtful. And we saw a side of him that we have not seen before. I don’t know how much of that is because President Trump probably told him that he needed to do that, but in my view, I want a judge who’s calm and methodical and open-minded. And at least the judge we saw during that part of the hearing wasn’t that.

Frederica Freyberg:
Would you think that should he be confirmed and serve on the high court that he would have to recuse himself in some of these kinds of matters because of his performance and testimony?

Janine Geske:
Well, that’s interesting, you know. I always think about that even in judicial races that are very, very vicious and hard. What that does to that judicial candidate, ultimately judge, in terms of their view towards a party that has done that. I think — not that there be a matter with the Clintons, but there could be that come up to the court. I don’t think he could sit on that. But I think, you know, in terms of whether there are things impacting the Democratic Party and so on, I don’t think it’s probably enough for him to recuse himself. But you do wonder where that anger will continue throughout his judicial career now that he and he says his family have been devastated by what he believes are these wrongful accusations.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right. Supreme Court — former Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske, thank you very much for joining us.

Janine Geske:
You’re welcome.

Frederica Freyberg:
Justice and the courts are front and center this election season in a statewide race. While the match-ups for governor and U.S. Senate are receiving a lot of attention, another important race on the ballot in November is for the Office of Attorney General. In the most recent Marquette poll, the Republican incumbent, Brad Schimel, was leading his Democratic challenger, Josh Kaul, 48-41%. “Here & Now” reporter Zac Schultz sat down with both candidates.

Josh Kaul:
Thanks for coming out.

Zac Schultz:
Josh Kaul is spending a lot of time introducing himself to Wisconsin voters.

Josh Kaul:
I’m Josh Kaul. I’m the Democratic nominee for attorney general.

Zac Schultz:
Kaul has a long way to go, as recent polling shows 87% of voters have not heard enough about him to form an opinion.

Josh Kaul:
I grew up in Oshkosh and Fond du Lac in a family that was deeply involved in public service.

Zac Schultz:
While grew up in Wisconsin, he moved away for college and law school.

Josh Kaul:
I was a federal prosecutor in Baltimore. And I prosecuted drug traffickers, gang members and murderers.

Zac Schultz:
He moved back four years ago to raise a family and started working on voting rights cases.

Josh Kaul:
The case I’m proudest of is one we tried here in Wisconsin, where we challenged more than a dozen different restrictions on voting that were enacted in Scott Walker’s first term in office.

Zac Schultz:
That 2016 victory in federal court wiped out restrictions on early voting and in the process Kaul won his first victory against the Wisconsin Department of Justice and his opponent, Attorney General Brad Schimel.

Brad Schimel:
The changes to our voting laws lawsuit isn’t done.

Zac Schultz:
Brad Schimel isn’t conceding the loss, as the state appealed the verdict to a federal appeals court. He’s also conceding nothing this fall when it comes to his race for re-election.

Brad Schimel:
My opponent has not had a very rigorous campaign.

Zac Schultz:
Schimel was elected attorney general in 2014 after serving as the Waukesha County District Attorney.

Brad Schimel:
Thank you for all we do. We do have to tell — Wisconsin’s on the right track.

Zac Schultz:
But even as the incumbent, Schimel isn’t well-known. In that same poll, 56% couldn’t form an opinion of Schimel. The attorney general generally usually has a lower profile in state government, but it’s a powerful office.

Brad Schimel:
We end up involved in the periphery in virtually everything that’s going on in the state because we’re the state’s lawyers.

Zac Schultz:
Working with Governor Walker and the Republican-controlled legislature, Schimel has drawn attention for suing the federal government to overturn Obama era regulations like the Clean Power Plan and the Affordable Care Act. Schimel says the ACA is unconstitutional.

Brad Schimel:
It is going to fail eventually. I think it’s better to get the lawsuit going and get it done now before there’s more damage done.

Zac Schultz:
Schimel says the goal was to help Wisconsin residents, even if that means wiping out protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

Brad Schimel:
We want people with pre-existing coverage to not be left out in the cold. But that is better set by the state.

Josh Kaul:
If I am elected as AG, I’m going to seek to withdraw Wisconsin from this lawsuit that is seeking to invalidate the Affordable Care Act.

Zac Schultz:
Kaul says Schimel is too partisan as attorney general.

Josh Kaul:
I think that the way that Brad Schimel has used that office is not the approach that I would take certainly. I think he has used it as a partisan office.

Brad Schimel:
We’ve worked hard, in spite of the accusations that are made that I’ve made this this partisan bastion, we’re not. We’re defending the law the way it’s written and we’re putting public safety over politics.

Zac Schultz:
Kaul admits if he was attorney general, he would seek permission to get involved in federal lawsuits that Democratic AGs are filing against the Trump Administration. But he describes that as priorities, not politics.

Josh Kaul:
I think that it’s reasonable to expect that AGs from different parties will have some different priorities.

Zac Schultz:
Schimel says what looks like partisanship is just his obligation to defend Wisconsin’s laws in court. Laws that for the last eight years were made by Republicans.

Brad Schimel:
I will solemnly assure anyone that if the leadership and the legislature and the governor’s mansion changes and we start having different laws passed after January of this year, I will defend those laws.

Zac Schultz:
But partisanship isn’t Kaul’s only criticism.

Josh Kaul:
Brad Schimel has just mishandled Wisconsin’s backlog of untested rape kits. In his first year in office, we received millions of dollars to test those kits. But after he had been AG for two years, only nine of the more than 4,000 kits that needed to be tested had been tested.

Brad Schimel:
He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Zac Schultz:
Schimel recently announced all the backlogged rape kits had been tested. He says it took four years because hiring and training more staffers at the State Crime Lab would have taken too long.

Brad Schimel:
That would have been an utter failure to go that route.

Zac Schultz:
So he sent them to private labs, which also had a capacity issue.

Brad Schimel:
Nationwide, we dumped over 100,000 kits into the system and those labs were backlogged.

Zac Schultz:
Kaul thinks the timing is suspicious.

Josh Kaul:
We need an AG who’s going to make sure that he’s on top of the Crime Lab at all times, not just right before an election.

Zac Schultz:
With a month to go in the race, both men are still unknown to most voters and they both hope the public will start tuning in.

Josh Kaul:
We’re going to keep talking about the issues that are at stake in this race and look forward to seeing the race develop in that perspective.

Brad Schimel:
There are going to be an unbearable number of political attack ads in all of these races. And I hope that people will dig deeper.

Frederica Freyberg:
That was Zac Schultz reporting. A week from tonight candidates Brad Schimel and Josh Kaul will be here for a one-hour live debate, their first debate of the campaign. Wisconsin Public Radio’s Shawn Johnson and I will co-moderate the debate. The program will be carried live on Wisconsin Public Television and Wisconsin Public Radio. That’s Friday night, October 12, from 7:30 to 8:30 p.m.

City of Milwaukee election officials sounded the alarm over voters deactivated from lists of registered voters this year and then after hearing from the city, the state elections commission agreed to reactivate all voters purged from the rolls. Marisa Wojcik gives us the numbers.

Marisa Wojcik:
Last week, the Wisconsin Elections Commission agreed to reactivate thousands of Milwaukee voters purged from the rolls. The removal process happened after the commission attempted last year to clean up the list of registered voters in the state. A common practice done to make sure that poll books are up-to-date. 308,000 voter registrations statewide were removed when the commission did not receive a reply to a postcard sent to the voter asking them to update their address in order to remain registered. A database called the Electronic Registration Information Center, also known as ERIC, was used to review Wisconsin’s list of registered voters. The system is a multi-state partnership that cross-references voter data with records from the Department of Motor Vehicles and U.S. Postal Service. ERIC helped update more than 25,000 registration address in 2017 and 2018. The problem is that not all of this data is reliable. The state identified 12,000 people that were inactivated because of inaccuracies in DMV and postal records. Unreliable data is concerning to the city of Milwaukee, which saw 44,400 of its voters purged from the rolls and some removed in error. Supplemental poll lists were created before elections earlier this year in an effort to rectify these errors. This isn’t is the first time Milwaukee has had its books purged in a major way. In 2008, before the state used an electronic method of updating voter records, the county had the highest such rate in the country, when 34% of its voters were removed. This is according to a recent report from the Brennan Center for Justice that identifies a national trend of increased purging practices. The report states that while no one disputes the rolls should be accurate, voters should be protected from wrongful purges. For these and other fast fact, visit wpt.org.

Frederica Freyberg:
That was Marisa Wojcik reporting. We check in now with the executive director of the City of Milwaukee Election Commission. Neil Albrecht joins us from Milwaukee. Thanks very much for doing so.

Neil Albrecht:
Well, thanks for having me, Frederica.

Frederica Freyberg:
The Wisconsin Elections Commission will reactivate voters removed from Milwaukee’s registered voters list, but how many is that?

Neil Albrecht:
We’ve spoken with the Wisconsin Elections Commission just today, in fact, and their intent is to reactivate around 34,000 records. So of the 44,400 that were initially deactivated as part of this process, they estimate — and this appears accurate to us — that about 10,000 of those individuals have already re-registered at new addresses, either in Milwaukee or somewhere in the state of Wisconsin. And so the balance is what the state is going to reactivate.

Frederica Freyberg:
And why did you ask for them to do that?

Neil Albrecht:
It was very concerning to us, beginning with the February primary this year, which would have been the first election since the state began the ERIC data maintenance process. We were seeing an increasing number of voters appearing at polling places whose records had been deactivated, but who still resided at their same addresses. In fact, in the February primary, which was a pretty low turnout in the city of Milwaukee and the state of Wisconsin, we had 100 people appear at our polling places whose records had been deactivated. This was immediately concerning to us. We had been monitoring the voter registration data pretty closely. And so we notified the state. We sent that list of voters to the state so that they could analyze the data.

Frederica Freyberg:
What are examples of how voters could have been removed from voter rolls in error because of this electronic process or ERIC?

Neil Albrecht:
We can only speak to our experience in the city of Milwaukee. But what we’ve heard from voters would be, for example, if someone registers a vehicle at another address. For example, they have a child who goes away to college, takes a vehicle with them and then they register that vehicle at that address. The DMV was flagging those records as a reliable indicator that the person had actually moved. Another example was the post office, individuals that had temporary forwards on their mail, for example, snowboarders or just somebody traveling for work for an extended period of time, the post office flagged those records, again, as a reliable indicator that those individuals had moved.

Frederica Freyberg:
And yet the intent of voter roll maintenance is a good thing in your mind; is that right?

Neil Albrecht:
Oh, absolutely. We support the intent. But I think there is one important way to view what occurred and that is if we were looking at the performance of a voting machine and it read 99 of 100 ballots correctly but didn’t read that 100th ballot correctly, I don’t think that would be acceptable to the minds of any person, including elected officials in the state of Wisconsin. And that’s really what we saw with the ERIC process. It absolutely did a lot of good in terms of deactivating voters who have moved, but to erroneously deactivate voters that have not moved, who are still residing at their addresses, and then may have to register again on election day, that’s an end not justified by the means.

Frederica Freyberg:
Because that can constitute some difficulty for people to have to register on election day, having thought, perhaps, that they were already on the books.

Neil Albrecht:
Absolutely. There is a backdrop to all of this, which is registration laws in Wisconsin have changed significantly over the last decade. And what we’re really seeing is some of the racial and economic disparities that exist in our society permeate voting in terms of a lot of people in poverty, which is largely represented by people of color in the city of Milwaukee, are being disproportionately affected by these voting changes. And so the effect of ERIC and the assumption that a person would be able to re-register on election day isn’t really an accurate assumption. Many people struggle with the proof of residence requirement to be able to register.

Frederica Freyberg:
Do you feel as though, just briefly with about a half a minute left, that the state’s reactivating these lists in Milwaukee will help public confidence going forward?

Neil Albrecht:
I think so. I believe so. I think it’s unfortunate that this occurred. I wish more had been done to vet the data prior, because I believe this has compromised public trust in the voter registration database. But I’m hopeful that the public will hear the outcome and will — this will be able to reestablish their trust in the integrity of elections.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right. Well, Neil Albrecht, thanks very much for joining us and explaining all of this.

Neil Albrecht:
Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:
As for how the Wisconsin Elections Commission plans to deal with removing people from voter rolls, like the process of sending them a postcard to notify them and then requesting voters respond to the state that they haven’t actually changed their address, Public Information Officer Reid Magney tells us this, “In the future we’re going to reevaluate what we do with information from ERIC about people who may have moved, and any future mailings are on hold for now.”
The Trump Administration announced a new trade deal between the U.S., Mexico and Canada this week. The pact, formerly known as NAFTA, is now called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA. Wisconsin dairy farmers stand to see some gains from the renegotiated agreement. Director of Dairy Policy Analysis at UW-Madison Mark Stephenson says while it will improve trade in an incremental way, the impact on U.S. producer milk checks will be quite small. Governor Scott Walker reacted this way saying, “This is a big win for Wisconsin’s dairy farmers. The new deal will open up Canadian markets for our dairy farmers, eliminate certain tariffs and eliminate Canada’s protectionist trade policies related to ultra-filtered milk that targeted Wisconsin dairy producers.” U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin said, “The USMCA appears to be an important step forward, easing some of Canada’s unfair trade barriers and increasing market access for our dairy farmers.” Baldwin says there is more work to be done around expanding markets for Wisconsin farmers and enforcing labor provisions. It should be noted that Congress must approve that pact.
We continue our look at Wisconsin’s Congressional districts, this week with the fourth. The district contains the city of Milwaukee and includes suburbs along the shore of Lake Michigan. The fourth district is Wisconsin’s most urban, with a population density more than 15 times that of any other district. As an urban center, the fourth employs higher rates of occupations such as health care and law than the rest of the state. The district has both the lowest median household income and the highest income disparity in the state. Milwaukee is also home to two of Wisconsin’s Division I universities, Marquette and UW-Milwaukee. Democrats have long held the seat in Congress since the 1950s. The current incumbent is Gwen Moore, who has held the seat since 2005. She faces two challengers, Republican Tim Rogers and independent Robert Raymond.
Coming up next week, the candidates for attorney general, incumbent Republican Brad Schimel and Democratic challenger Josh Kaul will be here for a one-hour debate, their first debate of the campaign. Wisconsin Public Radio’s Shawn Johnson and I will co-moderate. That is next Friday night, October 12, from 7:30 to 8:30 on Wisconsin Public Television and Wisconsin Public Radio. Until then, I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a great weekend.

Announcer:
Funding for “Here & Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.
For more information on “Here & Now’s” 2018 election coverage, go to WisconsinVote.org.