Announcer:

The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production.

Zac Schultz:

Threats of impeaching state Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz loom as the state’s high court begins to hear cases. And important pollinators see an existential threat.

Good evening, I’m Zac Schultz filling in for Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske weighs in on GOP talk of impeaching the liberal justice who just took office. Plus renter advocates want eviction records cleared after one year. Landlords say that’s way too short. And bee populations are suffering. These Wisconsinites are stepping in to reverse the decline. It’s “Here & Now” for September 22nd.

Announcer:

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

Zac Schultz:

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz remains under the threat of impeachment by legislative Republicans and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos who has now created a secret panel of former Supreme Court justices to study the legal issues surrounding the process of impeachment. We are joined now by former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske. Thanks for your time today.

Janine Geske:

Happy to be here.

Zac Schultz:

We should start by acknowledging, you are not one of the former justices recruited by the Assembly speaker, but would you have joined this panel if he had asked for your input on this issue?

Janine Geske:

No. I don’t understand how Supreme Court justices ought to be giving an opinion as to whether one of their former colleagues should be impeached. It’s a very bizarre process and I would not have consented to that.

Zac Schultz:

Now, this has to do with comments that Janet Protasiewicz made before she was elected where she called the current electoral maps rigged. And apparently, the linkage that we’re supposed to make is Republicans are saying if she agrees to hear a redistricting case but does not recuse herself, that that would constitute corrupt conduct in office. Is that what you’re reading in terms of what they need to do to reach this threshold for impeachment?

Janine Geske:

I think that’s their version of the argument, yes.

Zac Schultz:

So what do you make of that? How do we define corrupt conduct in office? Because obviously we’re not talking about a crime or a misdemeanor, which is the other elements of impeachment.

Janine Geske:

Right, right. Let me peel this back just a moment if I can. The first thing is whether or not it was appropriate for her to make those statements during the campaign and there is a United States Supreme Court case that’s not very old. It is absolutely on point, that says a judicial candidate can offer his or her opinions on political and legal issues. That case, interestingly enough, was brought by the Republican Party of Minnesota and then written by the conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court. But anyway, so there’s nothing appropriate about what she said. So then the question is, can she recuse — should she recuse herself on the case. Well, recusal in Wisconsin is different than a lot of other states because our court, a couple of years ago, enacted a statute or a rule that says campaign contributions, first of all, cannot be reason to have to recuse herself. And secondly, a judge decides himself or herself whether or not they ought to recuse themselves. So there’s no way there’s any corrupt conduct in this, even if she decides to sit on the case.

Zac Schultz:

So former Justice David Prosser is the only justice to publicly say that they are a part of this process. Do you trust that he’ll be able to deliver a report based on his reading of the law? Or what should we make of anything that comes out of this?

Janine Geske:

Well, I have respect for Justice Prosser. He and I served together. You know, but part of it is the appearance. Right? That’s what’s important at the Supreme Court and important in this process, and, you know, Justice Prosser clearly was aligned with the Republican Party. And, you know, first of all, I don’t think the justices should be doing this, necessarily, but, you know, it would be nice to pick somebody like Louis Butler, who obviously is on the other side of the spectrum. I don’t know who — I’ve got a guess as to who the second person is and don’t know who the third person is, but I suspect they’re going to be all aligned with sort of the same philosophical view as the Republican Party.

Zac Schultz:

So with this vague concept of corrupt conduct in office and this impeachment element has not been tested in the courts in Wisconsin, obviously, for more than a century, so is it likely that any attempt by Republicans in the legislature to bring the impeachment process forward would end up back before a court? We’ve already seen one lawsuit regarding that. Could this be a federal court issue about the First Amendment rights? How does this get resolved?

Janine Geske:

Well, this is what I fear. I fear that they will vote on impeachment, and when you are impeached under our constitution, the justice can no longer sit on cases until there’s a vote whether to acquit or convict. And I fear that they may delay that vote and there be knocking her off the court and having only six members of the court. That’s where I think there — there is an infringement on the judicial branch from the legislative branch. They’re trying to impact a particular case when taking these actions. If they would be successful at impeaching her, then the question is whether they get a two-thirds vote to be able to convict her. You know, if they convicted her, then it would hit the courts, but ultimately could also go to the Supreme Court because it involves First Amendment rights. So I don’t think it’s going to get that far. I think the Republican Legislature wants to get her off that case one way or another and this is the means that they’re using.

Zac Schultz:

So we’ve got less than a minute here, but no matter what, the whole issue just ties the reputation of the courts even closer to the political parties. What is the outcome in terms of voters viewing the Supreme Court as independent today?

Janine Geske:

Well, you know, first of all, Justice Protasiewicz obviously won her election handedly. She had 11% above her opponent, and I think, you know, now the people are saying, why can’t she sit on a case when we just elected her to the position. But the problem is, we are missing — messing with political parties and partisan views on the court and it is important that the court continue to appear unbiased, impartial, and non-political when it makes its decisions.

Zac Schultz:

All right. Justice Geske, thank for your time today.

Janine Geske:

You’re welcome.

Zac Schultz:

Online eviction records could go from following a person for 20 years to just one year. A tenant advocacy group has petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to make a rule change that orders eviction records to be removed from the state’s electronic case search after one year. The petitioners, Legal Action of Wisconsin, argue state law says dismissed eviction cases are to be removed from a tenant’s record after two years, but in practice, even if an eviction is not granted, the record of the eviction filing remains on the tenant’s record for up to 20 years, the same as someone who was evicted. For more, we’re joined by Carmen Ayers, housing priority coordinator and staff attorney at Legal Action of Wisconsin. Thanks for your time today.

Carmen Ayers:

Thank you.

Zac Schultz:

So sum up your argument for me. Why do you think this rule change is necessary for renters around the state?

Carmen Ayers:

So particularly the issue of housing is one that is a basic human need. All outcomes are determined by whether or not you’re properly housed. We think that having these eviction records following people for an extended period of time, it’s almost impossible to get rehoused. One of the main tools that landlords are using now to just determine whether or not an eviction is on the record is our court automated system. If they go on, they’re not looking at the outcomes of these cases are — where they’ve gone, what the underlying issues were. Sometimes they were improperly filed, but this record follows them and there’s not even a deep dive into what’s going on with that record and people are barred from housing. A year we think is reasonable because any court outcome can be concluded within a year after the filing and we think it’s really important that people have a fresh start, so having these records removed will make it so that maybe there’s some hope for getting people rehoused in safe, affordable housing.

Zac Schultz:

So this issue goes beyond renters in cities because there’s renters across the state: rural Wisconsin, medium-sized cities. They’re renters everywhere that are facing some of these issues. Right?

Carmen Ayers:

Correct and this will make an even playing field across the board. We think there should be a unified response. Right now it could be some people are having their records removed after two years. Some people are having their records removed after 10 years, but the majority of people is — there’s some form of judgment that’s filed and so 20 years is a typical time. And thinking about something following you for 20 years, maybe there was an issue when you were in college. You had college housing. You didn’t keep up with your rent. You get a judgment against you. What you did 20 years probably is not the mature adult you are now and why should that have to follow you and keep you from being able to be housed.

Zac Schultz:

So the landlords arguing against this rule say this will drive up the cost of rent for every renter, both those who have faced eviction and those who haven’t, through extra fees and costs. How do you response to their claims that this will raise prices for everyone?

Carmen Ayers:

This is an equalizing factor. Costs are rising regardless. The markets are very tight. There’s a limited amount of housing available to those who can afford it. So the idea that somehow some rule that could potentially remove a record after a year would do that is, to me, disingenuous to make that assertion. These things are happening every month, every year. And also, there’s access to this information outside of a court record that’s free to them. Renters now are paying application fees of upwards of $50 to $200 for them to do these background checks, and a lot of times that’s money just thrown away because they’re not even using those services. They’re just simply relying on a record online that’s free.

Zac Schultz:

We heard from a county clerk of courts argue that many renters already file motions to expunge eviction records and that this could create more work for the courts. How do you respond to some of those concerns?

Carmen Ayers:

Well, first of all, these types of filings are only happening in cases where primarily there’s an attorney linked to them. Most people that are going through eviction cases don’t actually have the benefit of having counsel. Most people that are facing eviction don’t have the money to stay in their apartments, let alone have an attorney provided to them. We are one of the few advocate opportunities because we don’t charge clients for our services and there’s a limited amount of attorneys in grant funding, so we’re not in any way helping the majority of people facing these evictions. The idea that these are going to be removed after a year will probably decrease the amount of filings that you’re seeing, rather than increase it. So we think it’s a larger benefit, especially to those that don’t have counsel.

Zac Schultz:

Now, this policy could be changed through a bill from the legislature, but you’re going through the Supreme Court to change it as a rule. Is it because you don’t think the legislature would be responsive or why this route?

Carmen Ayers:

We think that the court process should be overseen by the courts themselves. We think it squarely falls within the preview of what the courts have control over. We think they’re the best determining factor over what’s appropriate in these cases. Courts should run their own courts. We don’t think the legislature in this particular case has the highest authority so we are going to the individuals we believe that have the most invested and know the most about the issue itself.

Zac Schultz:

Just a few seconds left. So for the people, if this happens, will you see people less likely to be in shelters? Or what will change in housing for some of these people?

Carmen Ayers:

So we think it will clean the slate. We do think that people will be rehoused faster. We think it will decrease the amount of people that are going into shelter and staying in shelter long-term. It might be a shorter turnaround if people do need a shelter stay, and we think it will reflect adequately when people can get back on their feet and be ready to rent again.

Zac Schultz:

Alright. Carmen Ayers for Legal Action of Wisconsin. Thanks for your time today.

Carmen Ayers:

I appreciate you thinking of this issue. Thank you.

Zac Schultz:

For the opposing viewpoint, we’re joined by Chris Mokler, director of legislative affairs for the Wisconsin Real Estate Investors Association. Thanks for your time today.

Chris Mokler:

Thank you for having me on.

Zac Schultz:

So what would be the impact of this rule change for landlords?

Chris Mokler:

Well, the biggest thing that this does is it creates more work for the landlords and it also harms other tenants, other good tenants. I’ll explain the second one first. If this rule were put into effect, good tenants who pay their rent on time are now going to be equal in their footing on their applications with tenants that have had evictions. A landlord, for the first part of my answer was, a landlord is going to have to do more research and try to figure out because a landlord owes a duty to not only other tenants of the building but neighbors to the buildings in the cities because if there’s a problem, those are the first people that are going to be upset, which is going to be police calls. It’s going to be a problem with city leaders and have to be dealt with and nobody likes that.

Zac Schultz:

What percentage of landlords use Wisconsin’s electronic case search to research perspective renters? Is it nearly all will do some cursory search?

Chris Mokler:

I would assume that. There’s no way for me to have a number but it’s an available service to help make a determine, just like a bank does when it’s giving you a loan, they look at your credit report. This is one of the best ways a landlord can look and make sure they’re going to be putting a good tenant in their building.

Zac Schultz:

Do you think all of those landlords understand that some of those eviction notices may have been filed inaccurately or weren’t actually resulting in a full eviction and there’s a difference between that and a full eviction, and should there be a difference?

Chris Mokler:

We’ve been promoting. Yeah, we’ve been promoting that to our landlords. Just don’t look at the first page that looks at evictions and dig into it. Look at it. Some might have a stipulated dismissal where the tenant and the landlord came to an agreement and that agreement is put in writing and signed and the judge agrees to it. There could be lots of reasons but we certainly teach to dig into it. A lot of landlords will still rent to people with evictions but they want to know what the situation was with eviction.

Zac Schultz:

With this tight housing market, what are landlords facing right now in terms of the number of people applying for an apartment or a unit somewhere?

Chris Mokler:

Well, obviously they’re getting a lot of people applying for units. It’s maybe slowing down a little bit now. Rents are becoming a little bit more leveled off and obviously there’s been more apartments built in the last couple of years. Obviously not enough, we still need housing in Wisconsin, not only single-family homes, but apartments. So it’s been working out and, yeah, the landlords getting a lot of applications showing the apartment a lot of times. When I leave here, I’m going to be showing an apartment two times.

Zac Schultz:

So the tenant advocacy groups are saying that these records should be treated differently because they believe that housing is a human right. Should that play into this argument before the Supreme Court?

Chris Mokler:

Housing is a human right, perhaps, but it’s up to some tenants that have evictions and, unfortunately, repeated evictions. Again, landlords aren’t going to automatically not take you just because you have an eviction. They’re going to look at the scenario. But when you have several evictions, owing a lot of money and no effort from what we can tell to pay it back, therefore, it gets to be a problem of why should you rely on a mom and pop operation that may only own a couple of units, like most landlords in Wisconsin do, to risk their financial future. Oftentimes these landlords have another job and they’re doing this on the side and, you know, they’ve got to make a bank payment. According to the National Apartment Association, only about 7 cents, maybe a little less for small landlords, of every dollar of rent, assuming that the rent is paid in full, actually goes to the landlord. So one little hiccup and the landlord’s not making any money. They got to pay the taxes, the utilities, all that stuff.

Zac Schultz:

This rule change is looking to make a pretty considerable timeline change, for up to 20 years for a record following someone online versus just one year. Is there a happy medium? Like how valuable is an eviction record for 20 years ago versus one from two or three years ago?

Chris Mokler:

Well, in Act 317 from I believe it was 2021, 2020, I’d have to go back and look, we actually proposed a rule change that the state is not currently following, and I can’t get into — there’s a lot to it, which we don’t have time for, but there’s a two-year limit on certain evictions that can be removed from CCAP, the circuit court automation program, that we actually proposed, and they want to change that to one year. We just think that’s too tight.

Zac Schultz:

So we have about a minute left here. One of the county clerk of courts said that the amount of renters asking judges to expunge these records immediately, as soon as after an eviction is filed or closed, is on a dramatic uptick, that more and more people are doing this. So would a more uniform policy make sense if some people are more easily able to get their personal eviction records erased when some people aren’t?

Chris Mokler:

As to a more uniform policy, you see this happening a lot in Milwaukee and perhaps in Madison. Obviously, there’s a lot more tenants there. When it comes to getting it, I think the current law should be followed, which in some cases, we don’t think it is as far as expungement. There’s certain cases where expungement is good and there’s certain cases where expungement is not open records for all to see like we do here in Wisconsin.

Zac Schultz:

All right. Chris Mokler, thanks very much for your time today.

Chris Mokler:

Thank you. Have a great day.

Zac Schultz:

The Milwaukee Brewers are a couple wins away from clinching a spot in the playoffs and a few votes away from securing $700 million in revenue to fix up American Family Field. Earlier this week, legislative Republicans introduced their proposal to keep the Brewers in Wisconsin through the year 2050. The deal would include $600 million in state and local tax dollars for stadium maintenance. And the team would be required to pay $100 million. Last spring, Republicans dismissed a proposal from Democratic Governor Tony Evers that was in his budget that would have invested one-time funds to fulfill the state’s obligation to maintain the stadium. The Democratic response to the Republican bill this week was somewhat neutral, saying it wasn’t as good as the governor’s plan but they hoped to amend the bill in order to gain bipartisan support.

Turning to the environment, experts have long feared the decline in bee populations. These small insects have a huge impact on their ecosystem, most importantly, agriculture. But the number of bumblebees in Wisconsin is up, and so are the efforts to help these pollinators. “Here & Now” reporter Steven Potter has this story.

Man:

Their populations have declined at an alarming rate, in some species over 90%.

Steven Potter:

But why have native bee populations in Wisconsin and around the world declined at such a high rate?

Elizabeth Braatz:

Climate change, land use changes, habitat loss, and pesticides are all playing a role, and each one of those kind of stresses out the bees a little bit and then when you combine them all together, it’s an awful lot for them to handle at once.

Steven Potter:

Experts like Elizabeth Braatz at the state Department of Natural Resources say this loss of bees is a serious threat to global food systems because of the role they play in pollination. Here in Wisconsin, native bees help pollinate cranberries, apples, and a number of other fruits and vegetables. One important part of helping the state’s native bees is tracking and monitoring their locations. A statewide group of volunteers, known as the Bumble Bee Brigade, has been doing just that for years.

Judy Cardin:

When they’re dipping down like that, that’s when they’re gathering nectar. The Bumble Bee Brigade is a participatory science program where anyone who has got a camera on their cell phone or any other kind of camera can take photographs of bumble bees when they’re out in their garden or out on a walk and submit those photos to the Wisconsin DNR website. And that information is invaluable and it gets used by researchers.

Steven Potter:

Beginning in 2018, this effort now covers most of the state with hundreds of volunteers who catalog the number of bees spotted, their type and location. Despite this summer’s drought, the numbers are promising. Over the last five years, the different types of bumble bees found has increased and the frequency of sightings has more than tripled.

Elizabeth Braatz:

Fingers crossed for bees the rest of the season. We’re still seeing larger numbers of them and, overall, I think that there’s hope for Wisconsin.

Steven Potter:

There are about 20 species of native bumble bees in Wisconsin but there’s one in particular that volunteers with the Bumble Bee Brigade are always looking for.

Judy Cardin:

We have rusty patched bumble bees here and the population of rusty patched bumble bees has decreased by 90% in the last 20 years. Wisconsin is, I think, their last, best hope for survival.

Steven Potter:

The rusty patched bumble bee was the first bee ever put on the federal endangered species list back in 2017 and is regarded as a good barometer for overall bumble bee health in the state.

Jay Watson:

In Wisconsin, it’s a stronghold left for the population, so we can find them across the southern half of the state. But across their entire range, from Maine to the Dakotas, down to Ohio and Indiana, they’ve disappeared from most of those areas.

Steven Potter:

In recent weeks, three brand-new nests for the rusty patched bumble bee have been discovered here. Two rusty patched nests were discovered this summer in southeast Wisconsin. A third nest was found on a large plot of land owned by the Ariens, snowblower and lawn mower manufacturing company in Calumet County. The Ariens company is turning more than 200 acres into what they call a pollinator prairie.

Rachel Padour:

So we have a butterfly project and a bumble bee project that are both mainly built on the prairie oak savanna. We’re providing a lot of — I believe it’s over 140 species of native plants we’re providing not only forage from April to October in the form of flowering resources, but we’re also providing overwintering habitat and nesting habitat.

Steven Potter:

These efforts to create habitats for bumble bees are paying off.

Rachel Padour:

It’s a lot of area, but we have 11 different species of bumble bees found here, including the yellow bumble bee and the American bumble bee, which are both state species of special concern. And we also have found the federally endangered rusty patched bumble bee here and now we have a nest, so I would say the project has been very successful. We see a lot of bumble bees all the time. They’re always out here.

Steven Potter:

State lawmakers are also working to protect native bee populations.

Lee Snodgrass:

I’m so passionate about pollinators and pollinator protection that I recently got a tattoo on my shoulder. It is a rusty patched bumble bee.

Steven Potter:

Appleton state Representative Lee Snodgrass has twice introduced bills to help Wisconsin’s native pollinator populations saying Wisconsin is lagging behind other states.

Lee Snodgrass:

Unfortunately, Wisconsin is behind the eight ball when it comes to this and especially other states in the Midwest. Other states have already put things in place to protect pollinators.

Steven Potter:

Snodgrass has a bill that would prohibit the DNR from using one particular pesticide.

Lee Snodgrass:

Neonics are a class of insecticides that are particularly harmful to pollinators. They really interfere with the neurological system of pollinators, bees in particular. It makes it difficult for them even to find their way back to their hives.

Steven Potter:

Snodgrass is also proposing specialized license plates to raise funding for pollinator habitats and mandating that state agencies use native plants that pollinators prefer. She says it’s an environmental and economic issue.

Lee Snodgrass:

Without pollinators, Wisconsin really would not have an agriculture economy. Our crops are incredibly dependent on pollinators. We have our apple producers, our honey producers, our cranberry producers, all of them would see 70%, 60%, 50% decline without pollinators.

Steven Potter:

As to what individuals can do to help the native bee population survive and thrive in Wisconsin, the Bumble Bee Brigade promotes planting perennials like the purple coneflower.

Judy Cardin:

Probably about 25% of bees are at some level of a threatened status right now. There’s been a lot of loss of bumble bees. I’m going to do what I can do to help, and what I can do is I can plant native flowers in my yard. I can promote to my neighbors planting native flowers. I think there is hope and it’s something every single person can do to make things better for the bumble bee.

Steven Potter:

Reporting from Calumet County for Here & Now,” I’m Steven Potter.

Zac Schultz:

For more on this and other issues facing Wisconsin, visit our website at PBSwisconsin.org and then click on the news tab. That is our program for tonight. I’m Zac Schultz. Have a great weekend.

Announcer:

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