Guardrails of Justice: Courts, Voting, and the Constitution

You're listening to Civic Media.

You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.

Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime, anywhere.

Welcome to Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel.

Civic Media's weekly review and discussion of some of the most significant news stories in the areas of law, government, courts, and the aspiration for justice.

And now, here's your host, Jim Santel.

This is Amica Solar Review here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.

My name is Jim Santel.

I am your host this hour and also next hour on our weekly weekend review, our capping off in connection with all issues related to the rule of law, the administration of justice and the operation of government.

here in the state of Wisconsin and throughout our nation and frequently across the globe, delighted that you have decided to spend some time this weekend in exploration with me of some of the major issues in those areas.

You can be a part of our discussion, especially this hour, especially next hour as well, by calling in to the broadcast stations of Civic Media at 855-

7524842 that number once again is 8557524842 my wonderful producer Max who is with me here in the studio in Racine

We'll take your phone calls and we'll get you on the air so that you can articulate your question, your comment, your perspective, your inquiry about the subject matter of our radio broadcast this weekend.

And it's always, we've got a lot.

It is chock full of significant events from just this past week.

We're also gonna be looking a little bit into the future, identifying some of those major rule of law circumstances and occurrences likely to happen.

in the future history of America.

Let me tell you a little bit more about our agenda, our syllabus this weekend here on Amicus, a lot of you.

We're going to begin by revisiting a common feature, reaffirming once again the basic theory that animates a lot of our discussion, which is that federal district court judges, federal trial court judges, there are 90.

three districts around the country and in our national territories and they are populated in part by federal trial court judges.

These are federal judges nominated by presidents.

They're confirmed by the United States Senate and they're the ones you appear in front of when you are trying cases.

in the first impression.

At the first stage of litigation, they're the ones who oversee the litigation and that's why very frequently they will enter what are called preliminary injunctions, temporary restraining orders to keep things in place while the trials can go ahead.

And this past week, we have had more actions by those federal trial judges around the country, many of them.

I'm selecting just three of them to give you a sampling once again of this notion.

that it is the federal trial courts around the country and yes to some extent the appeals courts those are the courts above the trial courts to which you appeal your decisions but the federal trial judges are the ones for the bastions of a republic they're the ones for providing the safeguards against our attacks on democracy.

I'm going to give you three examples of that just this past week.

from three different judges, one of them from Massachusetts, we've heard about him before, having to do with vaccines, dealing a blow to our secretary of health and human services, administration generally, when it comes to virtually all of its recent decisions, and by recent, I mean over the past 13, 14 months or so, related to what?

Related to vaccines, pushing back.

on what our secretary has attempted to do and also telling them along the way that you got to rely on science.

You've got to rely upon the people who know what they're talking about when you're making these decisions to curb back, to roll back decisions and standards and touchstones when it comes to the administration of vaccines in America.

We'll tell you exactly what that particular federal trial judge did just this past week to tell

The administration of this present government, you can't do what you're doing.

There is a second case.

We're also going to be looking at another federal judge, this one in Washington, D.C., also telling the administration that it cannot do something that it has done.

And that is restrict journalists, reporters from covering the Pentagon.

The Department of, yes, it's still called the Department of Defense.

And as you may well know, our Secretary of Defense,

not too long ago issued some edicts requiring that reporters if they are to continue to cover events in our military there in the Pentagon right across the river from Washington DC in Virginia if they're going to continue to be in that venue covering our United States military they have to comply with certain restrictions and limitations on the nature of what they do many of them said no they walked out

A federal judge just this past week has said, no, you can't do that.

That's a violation of the First Amendment.

We'll talk about what that judge has said, what he didn't do, and what its meaning is for the future of coverage of our military.

But beyond that, the First Amendment, when it comes to reporters and journalism in America, what that means.

Then we're going to talk about a third case.

This one seemingly less significant, given the magnitude of those other issues, but this having to do with, once again, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, right there on the banks, on the banks of the Potomac River, on the other side, if you will, this side, the Washington D.C.

side of the river.

And in particular, we're going to be focusing on what a judge said about the entitlement of a legislatively designated representative on this very infamous now board is making major decisions about the administration of the Kennedy Center.

What's going to be happening there?

We recall just this past week that the director has resigned the board making all kinds of decisions, including recently.

to bring the operation of the Kennedy Center to a close for two years while certain renovations not yet clear but announced by the president are going to be undertaken.

We'll talk about what a federal judge said in establishing, reaffirming the obligation, the prerogative.

the possibility and the position of a United States representative who is designated, previously designated by the Speaker of the House to serve on that board.

She's basically been excluded from a lot of those conversations, or at least her voice has been muffled.

And the judge this past week say, no, you've got to permit her access not only to meetings coming forward,

but also give her the information that she needs to be a participant in that board.

Again, those are three areas, vaccines and military coverage and theatrical operations by an overseeing board.

Very different, very diverse in their focuses, but in all of them, as in so many others that we could also cover this weekend on our broadcast.

Demonstrations, illustrations of how federal district court judges are saying no to the administration, but not saying no simply to say no, enforcing the Constitution, enforcing the laws of our land, and ensuring that things are done legally in all of those different areas, and joining now, stopping the administration from doing what it wants to do in many different areas.

We often cover on our broadcast recently filed lawsuits.

We're gonna do that as well.

Turns out that the president late this past week has once again jumped into academia.

He has sued Harvard University and we'll talk about the basis for that.

Again, his continuing attack on scholarship and academics trying to affect not only the policies and practices of schools, major universities around the nation.

but to bring them to his altar, if you will, of academics when it comes to the way that they do business.

We'll talk about the president's latest lawsuit against Harvard University.

And then in the opposite direction, we'll talk about a couple of former federal FBI agents who have now sued the administration, sued Pambadi, the attorney general, sued the director of the FBI, Cash Patel, alleging political retribution.

And they're filing because, why?

Because they were previously involved in one of those investigations when Donald Trump was a private citizen, alleging that he had undermined the future of the nation.

In that insurrection case, also many agents, of course, involved in that Mar-a-Lago documents case.

These two, these two alleging that they were fired.

because of their tangential involvement in one of those investigations.

We'll talk about what that particular civil lawsuit against the administration says as our broadcasts continue.

And then we're going to be finishing up in our first hour, yes, it's a lot, with a brief overview of what you can expect from the United States Supreme Court in the coming week.

Some big cases involving elections and immigration, even down the road, yes, birthright citizenship.

back in the news once again on the docket of the Supreme Court.

I'm gonna begin that segment by talking about some things that the Chief Justice told us about when he was at Rice University just this past week, talking about the attacks, verbal attacks, and yes, threats of physical violence against members of the Supreme Court, members of appellate judge courts, and also also federal district court judges around the country.

We'll hear exactly what it is that Chief Justice John Roberts is bemoaning a not so veiled attack on what the President of the United States of America has said.

about members of the Supreme Court and indeed other federal judges when they issue opinions with which he is not in agreement.

We'll talk all about that in our first hour, our second hour.

Stay tuned for it.

It's a special hour because we're going to be having a very special guest.

She's been here before on the broadcast.

Her name is Kristen Hansen.

She is the president of Blue Sky Walk-A-Shop.

And she is going to describe not only the mission, the nonpartisan apolitical mission of Blue Sky to educate, to inform the public, much like the mission of this broadcast.

And we're going to spend most of the second hour talking with Kristen, quizzing her about the upcoming elections here in April, in August, in November of this year.

Who's running?

What are we going to see on those ballots?

What are we going to be doing with respect to in-person and early voting, absentee balloting,

and we'll talk about elections generally from the perspective of Kristen Hansen who's going to be here also taking your phone calls as we do throughout both hours and how it is you vote how it is you register what you need at a time when the nation is much consumed with debate in Washington DC and in states around the nation about voting and the qualifications for it as we know once again

There really is no such thing as voter fraud in America, the instances of our few and far between.

We'll reaffirm that at the start of our time with Kristen.

But we're also going to talk at the end of the second hour about this thing called the SAVE Act.

And why it is important that all of us be focused on it, it has not yet passed the United States Congress.

unlikely it will, at least in its present iteration.

But you should know that, according to my count, a handful of states, three have already passed iterations of it, three others are looking at it, and it seeks to restrict the ways in which legitimate qualified voters can vote.

It suppresses the privilege of voting, especially when it comes to people who can no longer establish what their

name was at the time of their birth.

That affects, as you can well imagine, a lot of people in America, including especially women, who may have changed their names upon their weddings, their marriages, and taken names of partners, spouses, husbands, wives.

And when they do that, plainly, their official name changes.

It may no longer be the name that is on their birth certificate.

Therefore, the law, at least the proposed law, requiring proof of who they are beyond, beyond the identification of them, say, for example, in a driver's license.

We'll talk about what the SAVAT could mean if it is passed in the immediate future, in the long-term future, or if it's passed by one of the many states in the nation, considering likewise restrictions on the proof that you need.

to show who you are, where you live, where your residence is, why it is you're entitled to vote, limitations on that, all of that coming up in the second hour here on Amicus Alara View.

Stay with us for all of that and much more.

You're listening to Civic Media.

Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.

Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get

started.

of Civic Media by my terrific producer Max, and together we're taking your phone calls at 855-

752-4842 that number once again is 855-752-4842 be a part of our discussion our exploration or exposition of some of these major issues in the area of rule of law the administration of justice the operation of government we're going to jump right into that and we're going to begin as we often do by focusing on federal district court judges they are the guardrails in America 14 months into this administration

with respect to the basic trappings of our republic they're the safeguards to ensure the continued vitality of the republic even at a time when we are facing a constitutional crisis and authoritarian regime tactics nonetheless federal district court judges almost to a person are the people who are representing the interests

of the American population, most importantly, the interests of our Constitution and the way in which our nation is constituted.

Let's talk about Brian Murphy.

He's a federal district court judge in Massachusetts.

Yes, we've talked about him before, if that name sounds familiar.

This past week, Brian Murphy taking on the Department of Health and Human Services, and in particular, telling the secretary there, his name is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., you know him well.

that he can't do, can't make the decisions that he has made throughout this past year when it comes to vaccine policies in the United States of America.

the judge again Brian Murphy is a federal district court judge a trial judge has hearings he takes evidence and based upon that he basically says that you got to follow science he is one of these people this federal district court judge who says you know what we should rely upon people who know what they're talking about we should not dropkick the thoughts

the good perspectives, the expertise of scientists, and the judge says, that's what you've done, RFK Junior, by making these major decisions about vaccine policies in America.

What did Brian Murphy in particular do?

He throws this roadblock.

in the way of what RFK Jr.

and the administration want to do by saying that the government cannot implement a whole series, a whole panoply of decisions on vaccines.

The ruling also reverses, at least for the time being, something else that was accomplished

by the secretary in the summer of last year.

You may recall this well, that in June of last year, Secretary Kennedy fired 17 previous members of something called the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices.

That's the ACIP.

These are the people brought together.

They're scientists.

They're medical people.

They're doctors.

They're healthcare providers.

They're clinicians.

They're researchers.

And they're the ones who give the secretary and other political appointees advice on, among other things, vaccines.

What are the standards?

What are the practices that we should follow to keep our nation safe and healthy?

Kennedy fired all 17 previous members of that vaccine committee and selected new panelists.

You may remember this story, many of whom shared his skepticism, wild skepticism of vaccines and mandates for them, many of them not healthcare providers.

but simply political appointees who were supporting his views.

And he went ahead, as you know, and reestablished, continues to do it in recent days, the standards by which not only young people, but also middle-aged adults and old people in America should be taking vaccines, should be vaccinated against some major diseases in our nation.

The decision by the Federal District Court judge, again, brings, at least for the moment,

these major changes, those changes, including cutting down the number of diseases covered by routine immunization standards.

In other words, the agency is saying, this is what you should get.

This is how you should be vaccinated when you're young, when you're middle age, when you're older.

And also restrictions with respect to COVID vaccine access.

And those of course were two sort of key pillars of

Kennedy's standards, his agenda at HHS.

Decision by Brian Murphy, noting that the vaccine committee has historically made decisions through careful review of scientific evidence, he wrote.

A method scientific in nature and codified into law through procedural requirements.

That's what the judge wrote.

But he added, unfortunately, the government has disregarded those methods and thereby undermined the integrity of its actions.

and Judge Murphy, making the ruling, brought by, in connection with the lawsuit, brought by about six medical organizations.

They had contended that Kennedy and some of his other appointees there at HHS had made arbitrary and capricious changes in the childhood vaccine schedule, arbitrary and capricious, meaning no basis for it.

Simply decided to do it because you wanted to do it.

And they alleged that the agency that apartment had bypassed those careful and evidence-based practices that in the past.

had underpinned these scientific recommendations.

That was the basis of the lawsuit.

The judge agreed with them just this past week and writes along the way that only six of the 15 panelists appear to have any meaningful experience in anything related to vaccines, which is the very nature of this committee.

There's now been decimated in a hearing earlier before the particular

decision of just this past week.

The lawyer for the Trump administration had argued that all these decisions by the secretary are irreversible.

Absolute authority and make vaccine policies.

Judge Murphy not agreeing with that.

Clearly dismissing that notion saying it's suffice to say that the court disagrees finding once again

that the vaccine policies of this administration cannot stand a major rulings.

The Pediatrics Academy lauded the court's ruling saying it effectively means that a science-based process for developing immunization recommendations is not to be trifled with and represents a critical step to restoring scientific decision-making to federal vaccine policy.

that has kept children healthy for years.

Yes, indeed.

When we come back, I'll tell you about a couple of other lawsuits, again involving federal district court judges, stopping the administration from doing things contrary to the law, as Amicus, a lot of you, continues here on the broadcast stations of civic media.

This is Amicus, a lot of you.

My name is Jim Santel.

I am your host for this hour, also next hour here in the broadcast stations of Civic Media, inviting you to be a part of our discussion by calling in, texting in 855-752-4842.

We are talking in this principle first hour, once again, about federal district court judges.

They're the bastions, they're the safeguards, the guardrails against impositions on our national psyche as evidenced through their decisions.

supporting the Constitution and the laws of our nation.

Let's talk about yet another federal district court judge over and beyond Brian Murphy.

He was the one who entered that order telling the secretary of health and human services that his decisions about vaccines in America are void.

because they are not premised upon science and not consistent with the ways in which the Congress has set up the board that makes those recommendations to the secretary.

There is more going on coming out of Washington, DC.

This one, this one comes from a federal district court judge who is right there in Washington, DC.

And he is upset.

He is not happy with the way in which our secretary of

Defense, yes, it's still the Department of Defense.

His name is Pete Hage Seth, has restricted the First Amendment capacities and access of reporters right there at the Pentagon.

You know where they're located.

They're right across the Potomac River from Washington, DC.

one of the largest office buildings on the face of the planet there, a federal judge this past week.

His name is Paul Friedman, F-R-I-E-D-M-A-N.

He's a U.S.

District Judge in the District of Columbia, and he tosses.

He rejects, he restricts the Pentagon from going ahead with its restrictions on various news outlets.

The judge is saying that those limitations

by the Secretary violate what the First Amendment to the Constitution, this lawsuit being brought by the New York Times, Friday, Friday, Federal District Court Judge Paul Freeman, ruling that the Pentagon's restrictions on various news outlets, agencies that provide information about what the military is doing, violate the First Amendment.

And he issued this order basically saying to the secretary, you can't do this, handing a victory again to one of our major publishers in this nation around the world, The New York Times.

It had filed this lawsuit in December over these restrictions.

You may recall that at that time when the Pentagon announced these policies, when they took effect actually even before December in October, drawing condemnation across the board from mainstream outlets,

media folks, journalists, academics, politicians, people who are concerned about news in America saying that these restrictions penalize news gathering methods long protected by our Constitution.

That's exactly what Judge Friedman has recently affirmed.

Dozens of journalists at the time, many of them, you saw the pictures of this who had press passes, access to the Pentagon for the purpose of covering that.

that entity, the Department of Defense, had turned in their access badges.

So nope, we're not doing this if we are required to abide by limitations and restrictions about how we cover the military.

The Defense Department then welcomed a new set of credentialed media members.

Most of them, according to most reporting, fairly pro-Trump commentators or influencers, and those of the folks who've been

been reporting for the most part on military operations, including at this critical time when our nation is at war with Iran, plainly also focused on other wars across the planet, including that continuing war in Ukraine.

March 6th hearing in this case, Judge Friedman signaled his frustration.

He sort of signaled that he was going to do exactly what he did this past week.

when a Justice Department lawyer representing the Defense Department basically argued that journalists don't have First Amendment rights, no protections, he said, when they solicit the disclosure of unauthorized information.

That was a statement by your department of justice in arguing this case.

Judge Friedman shoots back, why not?

Why not, he says.

He adds the department officials can simply refuse to answer those inquiries from journalists, but there is no prescription, he said, on journalists asking those questions.

The judge at that time also appearing skeptical of a provision in this policy, again, declared by Pete Hegseth, declaring off limits certain journalistic tip requests.

Although the Pentagon drew a bright line, delimiting prohibited tip requests from problematic ones, distinguishing one from the other, Judge Friedman, nonetheless, said, I don't understand that argument.

I hope the government can't explain it.

Well, according to Judge Friedman, they never did.

And so this past week, Judge Friedman says, those restrictions on journalists can no longer stand.

Recredential, those journalists who left,

Bring them back in and no longer impose these restrictions which are violative of the Constitution in the Pentagon

in the coverage of our united states military a major case involving the first amendment having to do with pentagon access by journalists in america and yet there's a third case this one also coming out of a branch of the federal district court in the district of columbia right there in our nation's capital the judge here christopher cooper c o o p e r u s district court judge trial judge in washington d c

He's ruling that a representative of the House of Representatives who is designated, among others, to sit on that now infamous board that is responsible for handling, overseeing the operation of the Kennedy Center, again, right there on the shores, the beach, if you will, of the Potomac River, has to be allowed to have access to minutes and meeting materials, has to be permitted to speak during the course of

of proceedings of that board, a federal judge again named Christopher Cooper just this past week ordering that a representative, her name is Joyce Beatty, B-E-A-T-T-Y, she's from Ohio, has to be allowed to participate in a meeting about the future of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and that temporarily resolves

A bit of a rift that's happened between the Congress, the President, once again, about how the JFK Center is going to be operated.

The ruling, again, gives Ms.

Beatty, who's an ex-officio.

She is apparently not a voting member of the Center's Board of Trustees.

Nonetheless, a window, some access into how the board is doing its work, especially at a time, as you all well know, when the board is remaking the image of the JFK Center for the Performing Arts.

After dozens of performers, you know this well, have canceled their shows in protest about new policies there.

patrons, many patrons worried about a proposed multi-year closure, a closure of that performance space.

The president has promised that as a part of his attempt to restyle and reconfigure the JFK Center.

Ms.

Beatty, again, a representative elected from Ohio, was appointed to her position.

And this is a part of the way that the board is constituted there.

by then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi way back in 2019.

And she's held this position since then.

She sought to use her ex-officio status to fight against, as she has said, some of these changes to the JFK institution as the president and others assert more control.

over the board and the governance.

You know as well, another related stories that just this past week, the director of the JFK Center resigned, you saw that as well.

The representative is one of more than a dozen members of Congress who sit on this as ex-officer members on this board as a part of what the federal law

that established the Kennedy Center.

We don't think about that an awful lot, but the Kennedy Center itself, a creation of the Congress, and therefore, therefore Judge Cooper finding that by virtue of that, and the Constitution of the Board through Congress, that these ex officio members do in fact have access to the documents, access to some of the meetings,

Ms.

Beatty had worked to turn a typically low-profile and ceremonial role into something much more, as she saw as we have all seen these dramatic changes at the center right there on the shores of Potomac.

She had argued that allies of the president installed on the board

have repeatedly worked to muzzle her opposition, keep her from speaking.

She has tried to assert that the changes the center is seeing has to be approved by Congress because it's a congressionally constituted entity, according to initial complaint.

which, again, Judge Cooper was resolving in part this past week.

When the board met in December of last year to vote to rename the institution, that's how much of this got an awful lot of our attention, right?

As soon as this became the Donald J. Trump Center at the JFK Performing Arts Center, the Congresswoman, Ms.

Beatty, appeared virtually.

She tried to object to that, but she was muted.

She was told to be quiet by the other board members.

And afterwards,

The House Press Secretary, you know her name is, she is Caroline Levitt.

She announced online that the board had voted unanimously to approve the renaming of the institution.

In his ruling, his very recent ruling now, Judge Cooper wrote that the secrecy surrounding the agenda for this meeting, other things going on inside this board to which Ms.

Beatty, Congressman Beatty and others have not had access, these overall plans to rehaul and redesign and reconstitute the JFK Center for the Performing Arts.

They were not being squared with the scale of the president's stated broad ambitions.

That is the contemplation of how the operations were to be conducted, not consistent with what the president was doing, and therefore, at a minimum, at a minimum, Judge Cooper ruled, you've got to permit access, admittedly by this ex-officio member to that sort of thing, in a 37-page opinion.

It's a long opinion.

Judge Cooper laid out the documents, including budgets and planning reports that have to be sent to Congresswoman Beatty within 24 hours to the extent they exist, he said, interestingly.

He added the government's claims in the lawsuit that no plans have been finalized.

We've not done anything.

Just four days before the board could meet, border on the preposterous.

He's calling the position of the existing board

preposterous directing, directing once again that this ex-officio member, at least be heard, even if she doesn't have a vote, she has a right to access by virtue of the way that the Congress has set up that institution.

Again, theater and important part, the arts are critically important part of our national constitution.

And they join the list of important issues, including vaccinations this week, our health care, and also, also, of course, First Amendment rights of journalists, many things going on in the federal trial courts of America.

In all of those, all of those, the trial courts saying, Donald Trump, Mr. President, can't do these things.

They're inconsistent with our laws.

We're going to keep you from doing just that.

We know that while those orders are being issued in America,

There's more litigation going on in America.

Let me tell you about two other lawsuits just filed this past week in different directions, different plaintiffs, different kinds of lawsuits.

One of them brought by the Trump administration by Donald Trump again in his continuing attack on academia here in America.

He's suing Harvard University.

Accusing the school of violating the civil rights of Jewish and Israeli people, this plainly unmistakably, as you can figure out, a continuation, even an escalation of Donald Trump's year-long animosity toward his clash with major universities, including those of the Ivy League.

The administration has spent months, as you well know, investigating Harvard,

trying to force a settlement on the university involving DEI practices, and the lawsuit on Friday, more than six months after a judge blocked, the administration's pushed to strip Harvard of federal research funding.

You recall we talked about that on this very broadcast, represents a new threat.

To the nation's wealthiest university and a threat to all colleges and universities around the country as the president again Attempts to use litigation to bring those universities into his views and we come back I'll tell you about another piece of legislation and then we'll talk a little bit more about the United States Supreme Court as our first hour Goes into our second hour stay with us here on amicus a lot of you

You're listening to Civic Media.

Find the latest news, information, and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website, civicmedia.us.

My name is Jim Santel.

This is Amica Salaro.

This is the final segment of our first hour, but stay tuned for our second hour special guests.

Kristen Hansen, Blue Sky Walk-A-Shaw.

It's been virtually the entire hour talking about elections, voting.

here in Wisconsin throughout the nation.

Stay tuned for that before we conclude this first hour.

However, we're talking about some newly filed lawsuits, including Donald Trump's latest attack on one of our major institutions of higher learning here in the United States, Harvard University, Trump administration suing, suing Harvard University and the federal district court in Boston.

Yes, that's the same court in which Judge Brian Murphy sits.

He's the one who entered that major vaccination order just this past week.

Trump administration suing Harvard University, alleging that Harvard has turned a blind eye to anti-Semitism and discrimination against Jews and Israelis.

and you may recall well that this has been a source of continued sparring between universities and the president for much of his first term in office.

The lawsuit says United States cannot and will not tolerate these failures and brings this action to compel Harvard to comply with Title VI and recover billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies

awarded to a discriminatory institution.

You may recall well that all this happens more than six months after another federal judge had blocked the administration's opening push to strip Harvard of federal research funding, a lot of back and forth going on between the administration.

Harvard, this lawsuit, this lawsuit, the latest as a part of that, Harvard not immediately responding to a request for comment,

but in the past they've acknowledged problems during protests over the war in Gaza but have also said that they have moved to address some of those issues this is as you know well based upon some of our previous reporting on this very broadcast second time in less than a month that this administration has sued a university over alleged civil rights violations again in an attempt to oversee the operations the policies the directions of

academic institutions in our nation.

Last month, you may recall, the Justice Department said the University of California, Los Angeles, that's UCLA, had tolerated, quote, gross anti-Semitic acts and systematically ignored cries for help from its own terrified Jewish and Israeli employees.

Justice Department said that UCLA had turned a blind eye.

The same phrase, the same template, if you will, used in Friday's lawsuit against Harvard.

it's certain to push back not only litigation but also in the public domain will continue to monitor that but it is significant because it joins a lot of litigation going on in America and there's more litigation a new civil lawsuit filed not in Boston but in Washington DC this one brought by two former FBI agents they were both fired last year for having worked on an investigation into Donald Trump's attempts

overturn the 2020 election.

We recall that well.

The FBI investigated that.

The specific allegations here are that because the FBI agents were tangentially involved in that investigation of Donald Trump, then private citizen, an investigation that ultimately resulted in an indictment of the president for attempting to overturn the 2020 election that these two FBI agents have now been fired.

Because they were involved in that investigation, the civil lawsuit against the FBI, against the Justice Department, against Pam Bondi, against Cash Patel, the director of the FBI, alleges that these FBI agents were targeted for political retribution.

In their suit, the agents claim that the FBI and all of its leadership, the Justice Department, had retaliated against them for being, quote, politically disloyal.

to President Trump, even though they had worked on the election interference case known as Arctic Frost only briefly and in a largely administrative role, a de minimis role nonetheless, nonetheless they were fired according to the allegations in this civil complaint filed in the federal district court in Washington DC.

Dozens of agents and prosecutors, as we know, who worked on these investigations, not only the 2020 election investigation, but also that Mar-a-Lago investigation have been fired.

They have left voluntarily.

They've been forced to leave their positions over the period of the last 14 months or so.

As a result of what these agents would describe as a campaign of political retribution that began shortly after the president took his position as our chief executive.

The agents filed the suit, which asked the judge to reinstate them.

They're identified as pseudonyms John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 because according to the allegations of the complaint, they've faced threats on social media from members of the public.

calling for their imprisonment or even their executions.

So they identified not by name.

The lawyers say the threats came after Donald Trump and Pash Patel and others describe many of the agents who had worked on this particular investigation as being, quote, corrupt actors or taking part in a political witch hunt.

Nearly a dozen FBI employees who had worked on this particular investigation have been fired.

by the director of the FBI, including these two agents fairly recently.

Their lawsuit, again, seeking to have them reinstated, presumably back pay, also a declaration, declaratory judgment, that their firings were inappropriate.

The lawsuit accuses Patel, in particular, of going back on the vow he had made under oath.

at the time of his Senate confirmation not to fire any agents solely because of the cases they had worked on.

The lawsuit noting that Pam Bondi had been threatening as early as March of 2025 to fire agents who had worked on Trump-related cases.

Indeed, that has happened.

She has made good on that promise.

Among other things, the lawsuit

alleges that John Doe 1 helped two lead agents download information obtained from subpoenas and store it in a shared digital fold folder where the rest of the investigative team could access it.

John Doe 2 was, according to the complaint, responsible for jobs like recording interviews and arranging for their transcription.

When we come back, we'll talk more about the rule of law in America, including the Supreme Court.

And then a special guest will be joining us in most of our second hour, talking all about voting and polling in Wisconsin and beyond as our broadcast continues.

Stay with us for that.

Welcome to Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel, Civic Media's weekly review and discussion of some of the most significant news stories in the areas of law, government, courts, and the aspiration for justice.

And now, here's your host, Jim Santel.

This is Amicus, a law review.

My name is Jim Santel.

This is the second hour of our weekly weekend broadcast, All Things Rule of Law related.

operation of government related justice related here on our weekly weekend broadcast, encouraging you, especially this hour, the second hour of our weekend broadcast to call in to be a part of our discussion with a very special guest coming up in just a little while.

Her name is Kristen Hansen.

She is the president of Blue Sky Waukesha.

Yes, you know her.

She's been here before.

She's also a very prominent member of our larger community.

focusing upon ethics and civics and justice and the administration of the rule of law generally when it comes to voting and the ways in which all Americans should exercise their right to vote.

We're gonna talk about all kinds of things, principally in this hour, having to do with voting in America, the elections coming up here in Wisconsin and across the nation, how it is you register, how it is you vote.

What are the specific things we should know as we begin to go into election season?

And yes, I'm going to talk about some legislation that's being proposed that may change dramatically.

If it is one day past, the ways in which you can get access to the polls, we'll talk about all of that in just a few moments.

With Kristen Hansen, my friend, our special guest here on Amicus, a lot of you, bringing inside and information and direction, helpful information as we go into elections.

and 2026.

Before we get to that, an appropriate segue once again, the United States Supreme Court.

No broadcast of amicus would be complete without some reference to the highest court in our land.

And in fact, much in the news again, just this past week, the Chief Justice, John Roberts, denouncing this past week, personal attacks.

aimed at justices and judges around the country.

He's calling them dangerous, and he said, it's got to stop.

Now, we all recall that at the time that the United States Supreme Court, in an opinion that included the Chief Justice, finding that the President had unconstitutionally issued all of these tariffs over the period of the past 14 months or so, then in the wake of that,

catastrophic decision for the president.

The president said that the Supreme Court itself is a disgrace to our nation.

The opinion that was written by the Chief Justice also joined in by Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, two of the president's nominees to the court.

He called them an embarrassment to their families because of their votes.

All of that, the subject of an open public discussion with the chief judge at Rice University just this past week.

The comments are part of a wide-ranging conversation.

They're at the university in which the chief justice is saying, basically, I've had enough.

The chief justice not commenting about the president in particular, but very much mindful of the fact that the president

has called the Supreme Court fools and lap dogs.

The Chief Justice Roberts made clear his comments were not directed at any particular person or political party, but hard to interpret them as anything but that.

He necessarily, and here's your important civics issue, he necessarily distinguished between critiques of legal analysis saying, you know what, I don't agree with that.

I have a different view.

but doing it diplomatically and consistent with our notion of civics in America.

Those kinds of things he said are necessary, they're healthy, but they're not harsh personal tax.

And he said that's where the line is drawn.

He said it is important that our decisions are subjected to scrutiny and they are.

The problem he said is sometimes that criticism can move from a focus on legal analysis to personalities Judges around the country are working hard to get it right He said and if they don't their opinions are subject to criticism But he also said that personally directed hostility needed to come to an end You may recall that even before Donald Trump took office when he was attacking as a private citizen members of the federal judiciary the

Chief Justice wrote violence, intimidation, and defiance directed at judges because of their work undermine a republic wholly unacceptable, he said.

And of course, all of that indicating the Chief Justice is growing fed up with the name calling.

and articulating more and more defiance, at least with respect to the verbal statements being made by our president and others, it is significant that all this comes at a time when the judiciary is being given more latitude to speak publicly in response to these attacks and some guidance issued to judges just last month.

The Judiciary's Ethics Committee said the code that governs judges' behavior

Now allows measured defense of judicial colleagues from illegitimate forms of criticism and also that they can defend against attacks that risk undermining judicial independence or the rule of law.

All of that, all of that happening again as the Supreme Court.

back in business this coming week, a number of oral arguments on Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday, and then more in the following week.

It is a busy time as the Supreme Court begins to enter its final, final movement before it issues some major opinions.

Let me tell you about three of the cases that are going to be argued in the next couple of weeks so you can mark your calendars according to the big one coming up on April 1, not this week, but next week, Wednesday, April 1.

Yes, that's right.

Birthright citizenship is back on

the docket of the Supreme Court in a case called Trump versus Barbara.

The Supreme Court is hopefully going to wrestle with the issue of whether or not the president is right or wrong in limiting the breadth of the 14th Amendment and prohibiting a finding that people born in this country are citizens if their parents were illegally here or were only here temporarily attacking basically that executive order.

that the president entered on his very first day in office, limiting birthright citizenship, birthright citizenship back on the docket of the Supreme Court in about 10 days or so, April 1.

This coming Tuesday, a major case involving immigration.

No, yes, that's Christie Noem, even though she's no longer the secretary of Homeland Security.

against a legal aid organization, El Otro Lado, and that particular case deals with an issue called metering and the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The question has to do with the circumstances under which aliens

immigrants to this country can have their asylum applications reviewed.

The question specifically before the Supreme Court this coming Tuesday is whether an alien, an immigrant seeking entry into this country under an asylum situation who is stopped on the Mexican side of the border, not entering this country.

Whether that person arrives in the United States under the language of the statute,

within the meeting of these provisions and therefore is entitled, is entitled to some type of hearing or whether the thing called metering, M-E-T-E-R-I-N-G, which the immigration folks have been doing, the Customs and Border Protection agents have been doing, keeping people across the border and therefore not affording them any hearings because of where they're geographically located.

Nome versus Alotro Lado, that coming up this coming Tuesday,

And then on Monday of this week, a major elections case, a major elections case called Watson versus Republican National Committee on the docket of the Supreme Court oral arguments, case centers on whether federal election statutes preempt, overcome, supersede state laws that allow ballots cast by election day to be received but counted after that day.

the court's decision in this major matter having to do with when we can count ballots received again after election day but postmarked by election day can those in fact be counted or must they be received by election day therefore subject to counting on that day the court's decision determining an awful lot again as we're going to talk in just a few moments

with Kristen Hansen about elections in America, including right here in Wisconsin, determining the meaning of a single national election day.

What does that mean?

Do all the ballots have to be counted on April 7th?

What about those that come in postmarked by April 7th but are not received until days after?

Clarifying the extent to which those states that retain authority to administer ballot receipt deadlines, whether that is proper or not,

As of 2025, Mississippi was one of 15 states to allow absentee mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be accounted if they arrived within a set period of time after the election.

States have different deadlines for this, as you can well imagine, as you know.

when a ballot must arrive to be counted.

Six states in our nation have a receipt deadline between one and four days after the election.

Seven states in the District of Columbia have a deadline between five and ten days after election day.

Two states Illinois and Washington also the subject of that recent decision that boast case involving a congressman who was unhappy with the

period of time in which Illinois was counting votes.

Illinois, Washington, they have a deadline of between 14 and 20 days after an election day to count ballots received, postmarked, but received after that election day.

That coming up, a case called Watson versus Republican National Committee.

on Monday of this week.

A reminder once again that you can hear all of those oral arguments live by going on the Supreme Court website.

You can also hear them recorded.

The Chief Justice has made sure that we have access to every single word said in those oral arguments.

You can hear them fight.

You can hear them argue.

You can hear them agree and disagree.

You can hear the litigants talk to the justices.

And you can hear the justices themselves express in many ways what their likely decisions will be.

when ultimately they issue their opinions.

This particular case, again, Watson versus Republican National Committee having to do with elections in America.

What a better segue, but a better segue to the introduction of our principal guest.

This, for the remainder of this hour, her name is a good friend of mine.

She is Kristen Hansen.

She is president of Blue Sky Waukesha.

Kristen, we are delighted.

I am delighted.

Our listeners are delighted to have you with us.

Welcome to Amica's Salar Review.

Kristen, I'm very pleased to have you with me.

We're going to spend most of our hour here, beginning a little bit this segment, but mostly in the next segment and those that follow it, talking with Kristen all about what Blue Sky Waukesha does, and then also talking about elections here in the state of Wisconsin and throughout our nation.

I'm going to embarrass Kristen right at the start by indicating that she is an expert in these areas.

She answers questions that I do not know, that I know that many of you want answers to as well.

And that's the reason why I am going to especially invite our listeners to call in both in this segment and the next segments, 855-752-4842 to be a part of this important discussion with special guests.

Kristen Hansen, again, the president of Blue Sky Waukesha.

Kristen is here to tell us all about elections here in Wisconsin and beyond.

Let's begin.

Let's begin in just the few moments we've got left by telling you, telling you that Kristen again,

is a good friend and an ally of mine in the interest of complete disclosure.

I have been partnered with Blue Sky in many ways.

It is my delight, Kristen, my honor every summer to engage with you in a series called Summer Civics, where we teach civics together and instruct the community.

Delighted to do that with you again this coming year.

Delighted to partner with Blue Sky Waukesha in many other areas as well.

Welcome, Kristen, to our broadcast.

Good morning.

Are you able to hear

me now?

We certainly are delighted again that the technology is supporting us as well.

Glad to have you with us, Kristen.

And we're going to come back right after this.

We can hear you.

We're going to talk with you right after this break.

Stay with us, everybody.

Stay with us, Kristen, as we're going to talk about all things election related here in the broadcast.

This is Amicus.

Hello of you.

My name is Jim Santel.

I am so delighted in these good remaining segments of the second hour of broadcast to invite back to our discussion, someone who's been here before.

She tells me everything I need to know about elections in America in the state of Wisconsin.

She is with us once again.

We're also taking your phone calls.

So if you want to quiz.

Kristen not me, but Kristen on all things related to elections and voting Please be a part of our discussion that number once again 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 Kristen so delighted to have you with me and all of our listeners once again we have got the bugs out of our technology and I'm gonna start with the big question which is going back to basics once again You are the president of blue sky walk a shot tell us what blue sky walk a shot is and why it is that you

who created this important institution in our community?

Well, I created this institution six years, no, seven years ago now, about spring elections.

That was in which is what we're in the middle of right now, because there isn't a lot of information about candidates available in spring elections, especially in Laakasha County, a lot of these smaller communities.

People will put their name on a ballot and then do nothing.

They

don't have a

Facebook page.

They don't have a campaign website.

They may not even be doing doors.

So I thought I need to be able to tell people as best I can who might be the right choice in these races.

And that's what started the whole thing.

I also have the passion for voting rights and social justice and civil rights, civil liberties.

And I noticed that even though Waukesha County is the third largest county by population in this state.

and has the third largest number of voters.

Unlike Milwaukee and Dane County, there was no organization outside of political parties that focused just on voting engagement in Waukesha County.

So we created Blue Sky Waukesha and we do, the majority of what we do is exactly what you said, civics, voting rights, civil rights, straight up nonpartisan voter engagement.

The smaller portion of what we do is we do make recommendations on candidates and people can see those recommendations on our website along with just straight up voter information.

How do you, if you want to use a mail and ballot, how do you get one?

Where's my polling place?

Can I check my voter registration?

All of that great stuff.

So we are just really happy to engage voters in this county.

Great great public service, right Kristen again the civics portion of a hugely important and filling some gaps where people need Need need to know how it is.

They're right, right?

I have an announcement

You're

hearing it here first in addition to the summer civics programs that we've been doing I think for four years now with you And so if you live in the general Waukesha area

You can look at our website in the coming several weeks and learn how to sign up for summer civics classes at the June Senate Health.

But also, we're starting a new thing called connecting the dots.

On all of our social media channels, we're going to show you how the things that you will be voting on, the races you will be voting on in the fall, have to do with the Constitution and civics.

so people can be very educated voters.

Terrific.

It's called Connecting the Dots.

That's the initiative.

We'll look forward to that.

If I am interested in more information, I can go online and find you.

Can I can find Loose Guy Waukesha, yes?

LooseGuyWaukesha.org, sign up for our newsletter.

No matter where you live in the state, you're going to get information about this broadcast.

We always tell folks what Jim's syllabus is for the new...

that weekend's broadcast.

And lots of things that are general information that anyone can use.

Absolutely.

The geography is broad.

The information very important.

So let's get right into it, my friend.

I understand that there are three elections coming up in the state of Wisconsin in April and August and November.

Here's a question that could probably consume about an hour of time.

Why do we have three elections coming up?

What's happening on those three different dates here in Wisconsin?

April 7th, couple of weeks is our spring elections, judicial elections, Supreme Court, very important.

And all those local elections go to myvote.wi.gov and press check my ballot.

You will be able to see all of the things that are going on in April.

Then in August, we have a primary.

to see who's going to be on that maybe important ballot on November 3rd.

Huge election, August 11th.

I know it seems like a weird time to be having an election in the dead of summer, but this is how we're going to narrow down who's running for governor and who's running for all these other important races on a state by level, the legislature and all of the top leadership positions in the state.

And then we've got that thing called the November election, sometimes called the midterm, but that's a bit of a misnomer, right?

Yeah, it is.

It is.

Yes, it

is between the presidential elections.

That's why we call it midterms.

But we can, that's when Wisconsin has, not every state, but Wisconsin has all of our statewide elections.

Half of the Senate, all of the assembly, the governor, the lieutenant governor, the secretary of state.

the treasurer and the attorney general.

All of those people are getting elected on November 3rd along with all of our congressmen.

So it's a huge election that will affect every part of the state and in some cases the country because we're talking about the House of Representatives.

And let's meld together what you talked about in connection with what Blue Sky Waukesha does with those elections.

What kinds of things can we look to Blue Sky Waukesha to deliver in terms of information, about voting, even about candidates as well in all of those elections?

Along with the recommendations and endorsements we'll make, we are going to bring in as many of those candidates as possible to do forums on Zoom and in person.

terrific.

You can find a lot of good information.

Right.

And you also do mailings.

You're, you're obviously online.

We can afford it.

We do

direct mail.

We do lots of social media.

We are on almost every social media channel you can, you can have, except for X and X and X. But Instagram, TikTok, Facebook threads, our websites.

your civics classes will be on YouTube.

You

want to inform people.

Wonderful.

When we come back, Kristen Hansen is going to stay with us, informing us more about voting's practical things you need to know.

Stay with Kristen and me and Max here on Amicus, a lot of you.

This is Amicus, the love of you.

My name is Jim Santel, and I am honored.

I am delighted to welcome back to our broadcast, once again, a friend of mine, professionally, personally, a special guest of this show and of Civic Media, who focuses an awful lot of her time, night and day, to Civics, and to make you certain that government in America works, govern America and the state of Wisconsin works.

Kristen, thank you again for being a part of our discussion.

Again, encouraging listeners to call in.

and ask Christian questions about the things we're now going to talk about.

So let's do some timing.

You told us already about the three elections coming up here, April, August, and November.

April 7th is the one you indicated a little more than two weeks from now.

I am sitting at home today and I'm saying, gee, I'm listening to Christian Hansen.

She's telling me about what's going to be generally on the election.

And by the way,

If I want to find out who's on the ballot in my particular area, where do I go?

Where do I find that information?

You

go to the magic website, myvote.wi.gov is the official website for voting for the state of Wisconsin.

It's got everything you need to know to vote.

How to register it during sometimes you can register online or change your address or your name online on that website.

There's a blackout period right now.

So we'll talk about that in a second.

But you go there, you find out what's on my ballot.

Where is my polling place?

What ward am I in?

So you make sure you get in the correct line when you go to vote.

You find out, can I get a ballot mailed to me?

Is it too late?

Is there still time to do that?

What do I do when I get a ballot in the mail?

My husband and I, our ballots are sitting on the kitchen counter right now.

We're gonna fill them out.

We're gonna mail them.

I'll be able to track onmyvote.wi.gov that my ballot got back to the clerk.

So all of this is available at your fingertips on my vote.

I also recommend that when you see that list of people who are running and in spring elections especially some of those races are uncontested.

You might see only one person running for one position or two people, two positions.

you know, decide whether you want to give them a vote or not, but they're going to win.

Let's face it.

But do some research.

Google the person.

See if they've got a website.

See if they've got social media.

Go to vote411.org.

That's the Legal Women Voters website.

They gather survey results, social media, websites, everything they can about candidates so that you can read those things and make your choices.

If you are someone who shares values with Blue Sky, Waukesha County, you can go to our website.

We have recommendations there.

There is another website that I highly recommend for the Supreme Court race, Chris Taylor versus Maria Lazar in Wisconsin, guides.vote has completely unbiased, well-researched guides for major elections across the country, guides.vote.

you can read all about and everything is cited.

So if it says we're real is our position on abortion is blocked, they have thing you can click, it tells exactly why they said that.

Same thing with Chris Taylor.

So do some research.

Really, it doesn't take that long, but know who you're voting for.

And by the way, in person absentee voting starts on Tuesday, March 24.

You can go and vote in person with usually your city clerk.

Check their municipal website, your city teller, village website for exact times and hours.

And then on Wednesday, the 25th and the evening, is the Supreme Court debate, a televised debate for that Supreme Court race.

Check your local listings.

But we were pretty horrified to see a grumpet poll last month that said 65% respondents had not made up their mind about the Supreme Court race.

So the more that you can get your friends and neighbors to check, guide, step forward, listen to that debate, really make a good decision about who you want to be your next Supreme Court justice for 10 years.

This is a 10 year term.

That's a long time.

And by the way, not every state gets to

elect their Supreme Court representatives.

So we should, in Wisconsin, we get to choose who sits on our Supreme Court, take that position, that responsibility very seriously, and make a good choice for Supreme Court.

A lot of mayoral elections happening.

We've got huge mayor races in Waukesha County, Waukesha, Brookfield, Muskego, O'Connellot, all running, all have going to be choosing mayors.

in April, so check your ballot and see what's on it.

It's important.

Lots of basic and important information available online through a number of different entities.

So I am sitting at home this weekend.

You already made reference to the fact that you and your wonderful spouse have your ballots there on your kitchen counter, but you also made reference to in-person voting.

Tell us more about that.

I decide, can I vote before April 7th?

Can I go to my polling place and do that?

How do I do that?

I would.

I personally would go to my Waukesha website, the city of Waukesha.

It will say, these are our hours for in-person absentee voting.

It's usually their office hours.

So sometime between 8 and 4.30 or 5 p.m.

I'll go in there to my city clerk's office.

They will hand you a ballot and an envelope.

It's kind of like voting by mail, but you're doing it in person.

So you're going to fill out your ballot, you're going to fold it up, you're going to put it in the envelope, and then the person at the clerk's office is your witness.

Very, very important.

If you're voting by mail or absentee in person, you have to have a witness sign the outside of the envelope along with yourself.

and they have to print their name and address.

Super important.

So you will fold that up, the lady at the counter, it's usually a woman, will sign the envelope for you and now your ballot is in a secure place waiting until April 7th when it will be counted.

None of these ballots are counted ahead of time.

It's just a way for you to vote early so that there are fewer people voting on election day, the lines go smoother.

And it's obviously very convenient for people.

You know, I always say, if you can vote early, vote early.

Because you don't know, are you going to be sick on April 7th?

Are you going to be unexpectedly out of town?

Something's going on.

The weather is terrible.

Make a plan.

Look at your calendar.

Figure out when you can go in and vote early.

Different in every municipality.

So check your municipal website.

Great.

So that's one mechanism.

You mentioned once again that you've got your ballots sitting there at home.

Yes.

Talk to us then about absentee balloting and mailing that ballot in, your ballots in.

So I'm going to be honest.

Now it is, what day is it?

It's the 21st.

If you want to go on today, maybe Monday, maybe Tuesday, and say mail me a ballot, you can do that.

But remember the US mail is not what it used to be.

So your clerk, your local clerk, is going to pop a ballot in the mail to you.

You will get it, and then you have to return it to them, either by mail or in a dropbox.

He uses dropboxes or bring it back to the clerk's office.

Here's my, so you can still do that.

I can still make that request as late as maybe one or so, but we're getting a little bit tired on

time.

Yeah.

Legally, you can make that request until the Thursday before the election.

I do not recommend it.

But the other thing you can do is you can go now and request ballots for August and November.

I always go in in January and collect and request ballots for the whole year and then you're done and you don't need to do that again.

The first time you request a ballot online, you have to upload a copy of your ID, your driver's license to your Wisconsin ID.

You can only use that system if you have a Wisconsin driver's license or a Wisconsin ID card.

If you do not have one of those, then you need to go in person to your clerk.

And you can register to vote during the early voting period, or of course in Wisconsin, you can register to vote on election day at the polling place.

Good old myvote.wi.gov will tell you what documents you need to bring with you to do that in person.

We

are so lucky in this state that we have in person absentee voting for two weeks, and we have

day of voter registration.

So even if you're saying to yourself, I didn't think this was that important of a race, but you know, I think it is.

I'm going to run in

there and vote and vote today.

You can do that.

In many states, you have to be registered to vote for weeks ahead of time.

So very good.

And so again, using you and your spouse as an example.

When you, if you are in, you do have your absentee ballots there at your home, you've gotten them in a timely fashion.

You identified some of this already.

Tell us what kinds of things we should be especially attentive to in filling out that ballot before you're submitting it, mailing it in to the clerk's office.

Use a black pen.

Don't fool around with colored pens.

They are not going to go through the shape.

You fill it out carefully.

You're filling in a little circle.

Make sure you do that neatly.

If there are errant marks, like you, even if you set your coffee cup on your ballot and that was a circle there, you're gonna get kicked out of the machine.

So if you do do something like that, bring your ballot back to your clerk and she'll give you a fresh one.

But make sure it's very clear.

It's very, you don't vote for more people than it says you can vote for.

Again, your ballot will get rejected.

If it says vote for no more than three people for school board, for example.

If you vote for four, that gets kicked out.

So follow the instructions really carefully.

And then on the outside of the envelope, again, you're going to sign it.

It's all highlighted in yellow.

You're going to sign it.

And then you're going to have a witness who is also 18 years old and eligible to vote.

You're going to have a witness write sign it.

write their name, write their full address, and then you can pop it back in the mail.

It comes with postage, you don't have to put a stamp on it.

Pop it back in the mail, bring it to a dropbox, bring it back to your clerk's office.

And you can do that, right?

You can physically also deliver that absentee ballot to your clerk's office at any time on or before April 7th.

Is that right?

Yes.

And actually, in Waukesha,

I could bring my ballot to my polling place and drop it on election day.

Not again, every municipality is different.

We're also almost unique that way.

Every single municipality in Wisconsin runs their own elections.

So some of them do central count.

All of the absentee ballots are processed in one location.

Some of them, they're all processed at the individual polling places.

If they're done at individual polling places, you can look up on.

and find out where you're polling places and run in there, drop your ballot off and that on election day.

If you have a central count location in your community though, you have to go to central count.

It's different.

You know, I would say use a drop box at this point.

It's still, you know, if I put my ballot in the mail on Monday, it's going to get there by election day.

It's two weeks away.

But if you're cutting close, use a Dropbox or drop it off, which you're going to

miss.

Very good.

So we've got all those possibilities.

And then let's talk about the old-fashioned traditional way on election day.

It's going to be April 7th recently.

I wake up, I say, oh, my goodness, I didn't follow Christian.

Christian's advice about early voting in person, balloting through the mail.

But I'm going to go vote.

And I have a right to go vote today.

I show up.

Tell us once again about this wonderful aspect here in Wisconsin.

I can register to vote on the same day of the election itself.

And I can actually vote on that day.

Is that right?

You

can.

Those are two separate lines.

Well, usually it's two separate lines.

Get in line to register, and then they let you, like, scoot to the front and vote.

But if you have electronic poll books, the Badger books, we call those, you

can get

in one line and do both of those things at the same time.

Go to myvolt.wi.gov to make sure your registration isn't already effective and to see what documents you integrate.

All right, when we come back, we're going to do a little bit more of that practical stuff.

And then to Chris, I'm going to talk a little bit about a thing called the SAVE Act.

what that means and hopefully not applicable for any of these elections coming up but stay with us everybody as Kristen Hansen stays with us answer more of our questions about polling and voting and the franchise Wisconsin America you're an amicus a lot of you

My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus, a lot of you, the final segment of our tour broadcast this weekend.

Again, honored and delighted to have with all of us my good friend, my professional colleague, Kristin Hansen.

She's the president of Blue Sky Walk-A-Shaw.

She is telling us everything we need to know about voting in Wisconsin and throughout our nation.

We were right in the middle, Kristin, of talking about that situation where you are now in the polling place.

You can register on the same day that you vote.

You're describing that process.

There are two different processes, but Wisconsin, as you said, has this wonderful aspect where we can do both on the same day and you can vote in person again on April 7th and these other days as well.

Concerns at all about the numbers of people who may be voting on April and in August, November again, big focus on numbers and the visibility of them.

I am a little concerned about April because for some reason we're not seeing the attention paid to the Supreme Court election as we have in the last couple of years.

It's a very important election.

And also, if you think about your daily life, the people who are running your community are the ones who make the most effect on your daily life, right?

So you should care.

Who is your mayor?

Who's on your village board?

Who's on your school board?

All of those things are April elections in Wisconsin.

So please do go to my vote, look at your ballots, see what's on there, and make an effort to vote in April.

Same thing in August.

I'm worried about a long turnout in August.

We've got, what, seven people I think running for governor on the Democratic side.

I think there's going to be at least two or three people running on the Republican side.

So if you want to weigh in on who is going to be your choice in November, you have to vote in August.

And in Waukesha County, we're going to have primaries for assembly seats as well in a couple of cases.

So if you want a certain person to be on your ballot in November, you have to vote in August.

Be informed.

Know about the people who are on the ballots.

Do this properly.

You want your vote to be counted in whatever way that you choose to vote.

All tremendous information.

And go meet them.

These folks often have coffee meetings or they do forums.

They do all kinds of meet and greets.

Go meet your candidates.

Now, we know that there is also this thing out there.

It has a couple of different iterations called the SAVE Act.

My latest reporting indicates

it is being debated even this weekend by the United States Senate.

Unlikely to pass, but let us not be complacent in maybe that motion that that the votes may not be there.

Tell us about what this does and why it's so important that people understand the consequences if this federal legislation passes.

The same app is not named properly, but.

The same act they think would stop undocumented residents of the United States from voting.

That's the purpose of it, supposedly.

That is a thing that so rarely happens.

It's almost invisible.

Even the Heritage Foundation, a very conservative think tank, found a couple of dozen cases over the last, like, six years of any undocumented immigrant trying to vote, and it's almost always a mistake.

So there is not a problem to be fixed here.

What this would do, and there is a lot of misinformation saying, this is just a holder ID bill.

What's the big deal?

That is not what it is.

Yes, you would need to show fuller ID, which we already do in Wisconsin, but many fewer types of IDs would be able to be used.

No more college IDs could be used for voting.

Certain tribal IDs would not be able to be used for voting.

And in order to register to vote, you would have to show the certified copies of your birth certificate.

And in the case of a name change, certified records that you changed your name.

So if you were a woman who changed your name when you got married or a man changed your name for some reason, you would have to go and get paid money.

This is a poll tax, which is unconstitutional, to get a certified copy.

of your birth certificate name, change your birth certificate, whatever it is,

and then

bring that with you to register to vote in person.

That means no more registering to vote online, no more registering to vote through the mail, because who's going to mail their documents?

And it would take effect immediately.

So if you're in one of the states that does not have same-day registration,

You may have already missed the deadline to register to vote.

And because you can't get vital documents immediately, you have to mail away for them if you got married or you're born in another state.

This is not the little cute birth certificate that some of our mothers kept, right?

It is a vital document that you have to pay money to get.

And now they want you to walk around.

with this information that is so easy to steal the identity of a soul.

It's fair to say this would be disenfranchising people as opposed

to that.

21 million people they estimate would not be able to vote if this thing took effect.

And there are certain people who just think that's not a big deal because their point is to suppress the vote.

That is the purpose of this.

Call your senators.

Call Tammy Baldwin and Ron

So it's easy to Google their phone numbers and tell them to phone no on save act.

It is a nonsense motor suppression bill.

It is unnecessary.

Absolutely.

And as you said, it is a solution in search of a problem which doesn't exist.

and for that reason again important not to finish here on that specter it's not the law today and all the things we talked about are in place so vote be a part of this process find out about your candidates as you've advocated and let me in our last a few moments here give you one more opportunity tell us where we should go once again to get that basic information through blue sky and also on my

vote

you can go to BootsGaddleWalkershaw.org.

Basic voter information for anyone in the state is there.

MyVote.WI.gov.

That's the place to go.

Very good.

That's Kristen Hansen.

She is a source of tremendous information.

Blue Sky Walk-A-Shaw, again, also a source of great information.

Kristen, thank you so much for being with us in this second hour.

We'll look forward to elections in April and then again in August, November, and your involvement in all of that as well.

Appreciate so much your contributions for our broadcast.

Thank you, sir.

And we will be back again next...

The national news cycle never stops, but it can be hard to find news about your local community.

Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.

With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.

Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.