Announcer:
The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production. You’re watching “Here & Now 2024 election coverage.

Robin Vos:
I think our members realize that we have been dealt a very difficult hand.

Frederica Freyberg:
Republicans hedge their bets and pass the governor’s redistricting maps. Democrats are skeptical, sure that this must be a political maneuver.
I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” Congresswoman Gwen Moore on what she calls a sham impeachment, and the latest in clashes over border security. The governor’s redistricting maps passed through the Legislature. We ask Senator Mark Spreitzer why Democrats voted against them. What El Nio weather means for spring crops, and how refugee resettlement is dividing western Wisconsin communities. It’s “Here & Now” for February 16.

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

Frederica Freyberg:
Last week, we talked with Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson, who told us he was strongly opposed to bipartisan immigration reform measures that were included in a bill to fund emergency aid to Ukraine and Israel. That bill ultimately tanked in the Senate. The aid funding was separated out and Johnson also voted against that. This week, we hear from Democratic U.S. Representative Gwen Moore from Milwaukee for her take on all of this. Congresswoman, thanks very much for being here.

Gwen Moore:
Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
So at this time, as you well know, it hasn’t been called to the House floor, but what is your position on the $95 billion emergency aid bill passed out of the U.S. Senate?

Gwen Moore:
Well, I think that it was gift wrapped Republican bill, in my opinion. Many of the immigration reform advocates were opposed to it because it was very, very strident. It was very heavily based on enforcement. It gave the president — not just President Biden, but any president, a great deal of enforcement powers, the ability to shut the border down completely after 5,000 folks had crossed during — in a day’s period of time and keep it shut down. It limited asylum claims, prohibited people from seeking asylum a third time, and it seemed to really disregard the welfare of children, which I thought was quite disturbing. And yet, it was a bill that President Biden said he was willing to sign. It also reengaged the United States in the Mexico — stay in Mexico policy, and it was a gift. It was 3/4, I think, of what Republicans had wanted in their H.R.2 Bill, and yet, and yet they refused to move it forward.

Frederica Freyberg:
And I want to ask

Gwen Moore:
Here in the House.

Frederica Freyberg:
I want to ask some more about that in a bit, but I also want to get your take on the emergency aid bill that would give $95 billion to Ukraine, for example, and Israel and humanitarian aid to Gaza. What about this matter of giving this funding to Ukraine at this time? What is your position?

Gwen Moore:
So I think that what’s really at stake is preserving democracy in Europe. And so I think it’s really important to fund the initiatives in Ukraine. They’re not a NATO partner so we don’t have any boots on the ground. And the least we could do is to provide them with that aid. I just don’t get it, why Senator Johnson does not see that, does not lean into that. It’s very puzzling.

Frederica Freyberg:
What about —

Gwen Moore:
You know, and today, we just had the Russian opposition leader die. We talked about it a little bit during the break. It’s hard to die of natural causes when you’re 47 years old.

Frederica Freyberg:
Indeed. What about giving money to Israel at this time? What’s your position on that?

Gwen Moore:
Oh, I think it was part of the larger package. There were defensive weaponry there. Israel is in the middle of a war and it’s being attacked on all sides of its borders by the Houthis and Hezbollah and ISIS, as well as Hamas. And so I think that it’s very difficult to deny your ally assistance and aid while they’re at war. But I do want to say that I think Joe Biden has really indicated very clearly that he wants Benjamin Netanyahu to sort of listen to our counsel a little bit more, and if we provide them with weapons, they ought to be used defensively and that we ought to be more strategic in seeking out Hamas militants as opposed to carpet bombing the entire population. You know, the situation is very dire. All of the Palestinians have been forced into the southern part of Israel. Rafah, I don’t know if people can figure — see the map in their mind, but there’s nowhere else to go except for the Sinai Desert. And, of course, Egypt, very, very concerned about their — saying that they could possibly retreat from the dtente that they have had with Israel. I’m very disturbed that this has turned into a regional war and very, very concerned, as we all ought to be. So I do think that Israel is our ally, but I don’t think they should take our friendship for granted. I do think that Joe Biden is very, very close to saying the quiet part out loud, that we’re really going to start conditioning our support because this should not be a revenge campaign against the Gaza people.

Frederica Freyberg:
Turning back domestic, congresswoman. We know that Republican congressman from Wisconsin, Mike Gallagher, voted against the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas, as did you. What’s your comment on his House impeachment, the secretary’s?

Gwen Moore:
Well, you know, in polite company and on TV, I can’t really say what I would like to say, but I think Mike Gallagher’s vote really is indicative of the pressure that all of these Republicans are experiencing to do what Donald Trump wants them to do. And Mike Gallagher is someone who apparently has ambitions beyond the House of Representatives, decided to just take an exit. He voted against the ‘big lie’ in not certifying the election. I noted that earlier in the 118th Congress. And, you know, he’s thoughtful and he has courage and I think that it demonstrates that great cowardice that we’re experiencing here in the House.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right. Gwen Moore, thanks very much for joining us.

Gwen Moore:
Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:
At the state Capitol this week, another curve ball in the fight over new voting maps. While awaiting a decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court on which districts maps will be in effect for the upcoming elections, Republicans in the Legislature once again put forward maps drawn by Democratic Governor Tony Evers, only this time without any changes. Even more surprising was the majority of Democrats voting against the measure, skeptical of Republican intentions. Not all Republicans voted in line with their caucus, while others voted in favor with great resentment. Republican Senator Van Wanggaard said of the vote, “Republicans were not stuck between a rock and a hard place. It was a matter of choosing to be stabbed, shot, poisoned, or led to the guillotine. We chose to be stabbed,” he said, “so we could live to fight another day.”

Robin Vos:
Once we pass the maps, more or less the lawsuits stop. There’s no need for us to try to do an appeal to the Supreme Court because the Legislature has adopted a map. It’s been signed by the governor. There’s no need for us to be able to go through this process to say that Janet Protasiewicz is biased and we need a Caperton decision, right, because she won’t be deciding on the maps. So I think a lot of the things that we have for the potential to go to the Supreme Court and win on are no longer are viable, which is why, if the governor signs the map, I am supremely confident that that is the map that we will run on in November. Whether I like it or not, that’s what we’re going to deal with.

Devin LeMahieu:
Given the circumstance the Legislature is faced with two choices: either pass the governor’s maps as is or allow the liberal majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to gerrymander the state at the very last minute without public input. Wisconsin voters deserve more certainty than Wisconsin Supreme Court is going to provide the Legislature. We’re going to step up. We’re going to end this sham litigation and pass the governor’s map. Nomination papers will be circulated in 62 days from today. The 2024 election is almost here. Passing these maps and having them signed by the governor will give the Wisconsin voters the certainty that they deserve.

Duey Stroebel:
And I don’t fear the election that I’m going to be faced with my delicately-sliced district now based upon the governor’s lawyers must have put together, but I’m going to vote for these maps because the process that’s underway in the Supreme Court certainly doesn’t appear that it’s going to take our arguments seriously or even consider them. So we kind of have a gun to our head, frankly, is really how it’s looking right now. And, I mean, I’m going to go out on a limb that says the governor, as he’s already indicated, he said that he does sign these maps because I really don’t think he wants to be so hypocritical or so partisan that he would veto his own exact maps that he has put forth.

Julian Bradley:
I don’t like this bill. I don’t like what we’re doing here today. I think it was already settled. I think we have a duty and a responsibility, and we did that. The dangerous precedent that’s being set is that a Supreme Court justice can run making promises of the outcome of a case and then rule on that case.

Frederica Freyberg:
Governor Tony Evers has until next Tuesday to decide whether to veto his own maps. He has said he will sign them into law, but many fellow Democrats see the Legislature’s move to pass Evers’ maps as a trick. Among them, Democratic State Senator Mark Spreitzer. Senator, thanks very much for being here.

Mark Spreitzer:
Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
So are you among those who wanted the governor to veto his own maps and hold out for the Supreme Court’s choice?

Mark Spreitzer:
I trust Governor Evers to make this decision and to consult with his lawyers and figure out what the best path to fair maps is. Obviously, his map is one of four fair maps that are pending before the state Supreme Court. I do trust the state Supreme Court to make the decision on what the best map is, whether that’s one of these for or whether to make any tweaks or anything to any of those four maps. I also trust Governor Evers to decide if signing this map is the best path to get fair maps that we can all have going forward. There was a question with what actually came before the state Assembly and the state Senate to vote on, that although it was a clean version of the governor’s map, we had a question about whether the bill itself was a clean bill because it doesn’t cause the map to take effect until this fall’s election. And right now, we have a map that is unconstitutional, that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has said can’t be used for any future elections and there’s a recall effort against Speaker Robin Vos. There’s a special election that’s needed in the Fourth Senate District, and so there’s some unanswered questions if this bill is signed into law about what map those elections are held on and what map exists between now and November. Those questions could be answered by going back to the state Supreme Court and trying to get clarity, but that’s something I think Governor Evers needs to look at as he’s making this decision. And then we also just need to make sure that there’s not any Republican tricks that would somehow make it easier for them to choose what court to appeal to and maybe get a conservative federal court to intervene here and stop us from having fair maps. Those are all the things that are on my mind and that I hope are on Governor Evers’ mind as he makes this decision.

Frederica Freyberg:
So on those two points, does it matter to you at all that the Legislative Reference Bureau reports that it added the language to the bill saying the maps would first take effect for the November 2024 election?

Mark Spreitzer:
I think there’s a question of intent and there’s a question of effect. So I take the Legislative Reference Bureau at its word that they added that language and weren’t directed to add it for any political purpose, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have a political outcome, and I think it still leaves open the question of what maps say the Vos recall should be held on and any future special elections and LRB said that this is sort of the normal procedure, but we’re not in normal circumstances. We normally aren’t doing a redistricting process mid-decade because the state Supreme Court has found the existing map to be unconstitutional. So I think there’s still some questions there and one of the really unfortunate things and one of the things that cemented my “no” vote was that even though Republicans announced the week before their intention to vote on this map, they didn’t actually put the amendment out to the public or to legislators in advance. They didn’t go through the normal committee process. I’m the top Democrat on the committee that this underlined bill was in and normally we would vote in committee and maybe adopt the amendment with the maps in committee, but instead the bill was pulled out of committee without a vote at all. And we didn’t get the amendment that put the governor’s maps into place until we were actually on the Senate floor. That could have been put out all weekend for the public to look at and for people to weigh in, but no public hearing was held and this was really something that was decided in closed Republican caucus and brought forward at the last minute. And my question is why? If this is what you were going to do, why not just put it out for everybody to see and then we could have raised these questions in advance of the vote.

Frederica Freyberg:
As to the question of whether or not the passage of the governor’s maps opens the door to federal lawsuits, say, so many experts say that that is just not at all likely.

Mark Spreitzer:
I have certainly heard folks saying that’s not likely, and I hope it’s not likely. I hope that if this is the map, that we can all run on it and not risk further lawsuits, but I also know that they are very credible lawyers, like Mark Elias, who has won numerous cases on elected-related issues around the country who’ve raised concerns here. I have not had a chance to talk to him directly. I’m not a lawyer, and that’s something where, you know, I wanted to take the cautious approach and say, you know what, this is moving really quickly. We don’t have answers to these questions. I’m going to vote no, but the governor has plenty of lawyers around him that he’s talking to and I trust that if he decides this is the right thing to do, he’ll either sign or veto this accordingly.

Frederica Freyberg:
Going all the way back to the beginning and really with only about half a minute left, how surprised were you that the Republican Legislature took up and passed the Evers’ maps?

Mark Spreitzer:
I was surprised. Republican legislators just a couple of weeks ago were talking about how terrible these maps were, but I think they ultimately decided that they wanted to control the process here and control their own destiny, and that’s another reason I voted no. I don’t think politicians should be cherry-picking maps. I think the people of Wisconsin should be picking they’re politicians, their elected officials and so I just did not want to be in a position of deciding what map was best for political reasons. Leave that to the governor. Leave that to the court.

Frederica Freyberg:
Senator Spreitzer, thanks very much.

Mark Spreitzer:
Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
This winter has seen record high temperatures caused by a mixture of an uncommon weather event called El Nio and the more common climate change. Those warm temperatures caused a surprise tornado in Evansville last week, causing an estimated $2.4 million worth of damage. “Here & Now” reporter Aditi Debnath has more on what a warming climate means for Wisconsin.

Aditi Debnath:
At the start of the new year, heavy winter storms hit much of Wisconsin. Along with bitter cold, storms brought more snowfall than the state saw in all of December combined. Although that snowstorm was not abnormal for a Wisconsin winter, the subzero cold felt extreme because temperatures before and after the storms were above freezing. February returns back to the unusually warm temperatures that marked the beginning of this winter. The unseasonal warmth is likely due to climate change and a weather event called El Nio, when rising temperatures in the Pacific Ocean cause a warmer winter and less snowfall. It also means a dry winter. A dry El Nio winter could prolong the effects of drought conditions in a third of the state. This has a particular impact on farmers. Although the snow is melting because it’s warm during the day, at night, it’s below freezing so the soil stays frozen. The frozen soil is unable to absorb the snow melt and remains dry until the spring thaw, at which point farmers need wet soil to germinate young crops. This December marked Wisconsin’s warmest and driest on record, with temperatures between 5 and 9 warmer than average. About 740,000 Wisconsin residents currently live in areas of drought, particularly in the northern part of the state. While El Nio comes along every three to five years, the effects of climate change could bring these conditions in more Wisconsin winters to come. For “Here & Now,” I’m Aditi Debnath.

Frederica Freyberg:
Turning to western Wisconsin, the Chippewa County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution this week calling for a pause on plans to bring refugees to the Chippewa Valley. While the resolution is nonbinding, it sends a message that mirrors some of the division within the community. Marisa Wojcik reports.

Matthew Soerens:
We began just an exploratory process.

Marisa Wojcik:
Last spring, World Relief began looking for a community where refugees could find a new home.

Matthew Soerens:
And we began a process of consulting with local leaders, governmental leaders, as well as school boards, law enforcement, potential employers, apartment — you know, landlords, local churches and other faith and nonprofit organizations and really came to the conclusion that this is a community that is really eager to welcome refugees and we proposed that to the federal government, which has the ultimate authority on where refugees are resettled.

Marisa Wojcik:
In the fall, they held a public hearing and local news began covering plans to resettle roughly 75 refugees in the area.

Karen Hurd:
I started to get many, many calls, emails, emails, calls.

Marisa Wojcik:
Representative Karen Hurd’s district includes the east edge of Eau Claire.

Karen Hurd:
Are we prepared? Do we have the infrastructure in place? We would like our city officials to be able to evaluate it.

Marisa Wojcik:
She said not being aware of the plans made her unprepared to address questions and concerns.

Karen Hurd:
It was just that the public wasn’t aware of it, because 75 people coming in from Minnesota and another state, they’re coming here on their own. They have the money to come here on their own. They’re moving their families here and they get a job. They’re people like you and I. But these are people that most likely are going to be dependent upon services.

Marisa Wojcik:
World Relief says that’s typically not the case.

Matthew Soerens:
There’s a very strong focus on the federal refugee settlement program to help refugees find work within the first 90 days after they arrive and be economically self-sufficient as quickly as possible and western Wisconsin has a lot of job needs, actually right now so that we can provide people who are authorized to work. It’s actually a win-win.

Karen Hurd:
I am supportive of people coming to our country as long as they are coming legally, so, yes, absolutely, let them come.

Marisa Wojcik:
She says her issue is proper public notice and input. World Relief says they did have conversations with local stakeholders, as is required in the Federal Refugee Act of 1980. It says agencies like World Relief must work in close cooperation and advance consultation with state and local governments. The law also outlines criteria, ensuring a refugee is not resettled in an area highly impacted. But this doesn’t go far enough for Representative Hurd. She authored a bill that outlines specifics for contacting local elected officials. Is what you have in your mind the equivalent of permission?

Karen Hurd:
Not at all. Input. That’s all this is. Could we be at the table too?

Matthew Soerens:
The reason we’re opposed to this bill is we think it is not necessary. We think there’s already a robust process for community consultation. We went through that process very carefully.

Marisa Wojcik:
The proposal says if a local official connects with a federal or nonprofit agency relating to refugee resettlement, it must be reported to every city, village, town, county, and school district touching a 100-mile radius from where a proposed refugee would be placed. Each local body contacted must take it up as a meeting agenda item and take public comment.

Matthew Soerens:
It’s very conceivable that every single preliminary conversation about the possibility of refugee settlement would need to trigger more than a thousand meetings, followed by follow-up meetings that would be required, followed by potential resolutions in communities that are unlikely ever to see a refugee resettled into their neighborhood or community.

Karen Hurd:
I don’t think it’s a burden at all. It’s actually very minimal because they just have to be notified and if they want to be a part of the discussion, they can send a representative. So it would be those interested parties that want to.

Marisa Wojcik:
But representatives in Congress take issue with more than just notice. In a letter from Congressman Tom Tiffany to the Eau Claire City Council, he wrote, plans by a controversial NGO to resettle a large number of refugees potentially from Somalia, Syria, and other unstable countries in the Eau Claire area have raised understandable concerns among local residents. Given the dangerous conditions in these conditions and the Biden administration’s alarming track record when it comes to vetting newcomers, it is inconceivable that the local community would be kept in the dark in this way.

Matthew Soerens:
There’s been a lot of questions. What countries people are coming from. Our view is that’s the federal government’s job to figure out, is to determine if these people have indeed fled a well-founded fear of persecution, which is the legal definition of a refugee. Have they been thoroughly vetted by our federal government. I think a lot of the concerns people have are based on confusion, which is really understandable because the dynamics at the border, which are really important, are in the news every single day.

Marisa Wojcik:
And Representative Hurd agrees.

Karen Hurd:
I would say there is confusion, unequivocally. There is a huge difference. A refugee is vetted by our government and it’s a very rigorous process they go through that takes years and years for them to finally be approved.

Marisa Wojcik:
Because of this and other steps outlined in the 1980 federal law, World Relief worries about the message this bill sends.

Matthew Soerens:
Is it stigmatizing refugees? It implies that we need this notice and potential resolution process about the arrival of a small number of people from these countries.

Man in meeting:
The narrative in the press and in the community has been dominated by a small minority opposed to the planned refugee resettlement.

Marisa Wojcik:
In January, the Eau Claire City Council unanimously passed a resolution affirming support of refugees making Eau Claire their new home.

Matthew Soerens:
I think the vast majority of people in Eau Claire have been very enthusiastic about this idea of welcoming a relatively small number of refugee families to the community.

Marisa Wojcik:
Earlier this month, the first family arrived in the area, coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo. For “Here & Now,” I’m Marisa Wojcik.

Frederica Freyberg:
For more on this and other issues facing Wisconsin, visit our website at PBSwisconsin.org and then click on the news tab. That’s 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.