Welcome to Civic Media's 2023 year-on-review of Democracy in Wisconsin.
Post Kristen Brine and Todd Alba sat down with members of Law Forward to recap the events
of the year, along with a look ahead to 2024.
In the new year, stay up to date with our growing radio network by following Civic Media
on your favorite social media platform and by downloading the Civic Media app.
Here are your hosts, Kristen Brine and Todd Alba.
I'm Kristen Brine of ASBO's Wisconsin, along with Todd Alba of the Todd Alba Show and welcome
to a year-on-review of Democracy in Wisconsin in 2023.
Election cycle, after election cycle, we are told that Wisconsin is facing the most important
election of our lifetimes.
In 2024, that will undoubtedly be the case once again.
And in preparing for the year to come, Civic Media believes it's important to review what
happened in Wisconsin over the past year in regards to fair elections and equal representation
in the state.
And Kristen, if there's anybody I want to look back with, but more importantly, look forward
to it.
It's you.
We get to work again together.
See a great way to kick off 2024.
For that look back as you spoke of, we're going to see what lies ahead also at our pivotal
battleground state.
We're going to be joined by members of a great organization called Law Forward to discuss
actions.
Their organization took this year to ensure accountability in past elections.
But as it pretty more importantly, it worked towards fair representation in Wisconsin
to future elections.
And Kristen, we have two fantastic guests with us today.
Indeed.
We are so happy to have Law Forward's executive director Nicole Safar and staff council
Scott Thompson.
That's right.
Just making sure.
Welcome to the show.
We're so excited to have you both in studio.
Thank you so much.
We're really excited to be here and to talk about everything that has transpired over the
last year.
And you know, the good things we hope are going to happen soon.
So let's start from the very beginning as far as for people unfamiliar with Law Forward,
even though you've been in the news a lot this year, let's just talk what is Law Forward
and why was it founded?
Yeah.
Law Forward is a 501-C3 nonprofit nonpartisan organization based in Wisconsin.
And we're focused on protecting and expanding our democracy here through impact litigation
and public education around voting rights, election administration, restoring checks and
balances, and election subversion prevention and accountability.
We're really a homegrown local legal organization and we launched in the fall of 2020 in an
environment that I'm sure many of your listeners remember was pretty hostile to democracy was.
It was an inflection point in hostility towards democracy.
And you know, those of us who have lived in Wisconsin in the last decade really understand
that there since, you know, the mid-Aughts, there has been this right wing effort, coordinated
effort to thwart the will of the people.
And we saw that really highlighted in 2020 to overthrow the will of the people at the
bout box and in the court system and consolidate power among a homogenous few.
These right wing forces over the last decade have held policy solutions hostage in the Wisconsin
state legislature.
And at the heart of that is really the extreme partisan gerrymandor we've had in our state
legislative maps the last decade and change.
So that was kind of the environment that law forward was launched in with the idea that
fair maps coming up in in 2021, it was a real opportunity.
And that was sort of the the theory of change initially for a law forward.
But what we found that year and, you know, end of 2020, 2021, 2022 was that there was
a real gap to be filled here around preventing election subversion through manipulating our
election administration system.
And we've done a ton of work on accountability in that space to make sure that clerks have
the information and resources they need for implementing fair elections.
And really just to keep our eye on that right wing is they continue to find new tactics
to get in the way of a free and fair election.
Scott Thompson, you are the staff counsel for law forward.
We hear a lot about, you know, oh, you know, we have to do this to save democracy.
Democracy is at risk.
And I think we hear that so often that some of us get numb and calloused to what that
actually means.
Can you walk us through as an attorney, but you know, kind of put it down there in terms
like goofballs like me can understand what threats to democracy exist and what were
those specific threats that you're trying to respond to law forward.
So there's a lot of threats that's true.
But big picture, I think as democracy, I think of democracy as a system in which parties
can lose elections.
It's kind of a simple way to put it, but in essence, we are not a dictatorship.
We are not a system where one person runs everything.
People have a say and parties win and lose.
The power can change.
But ultimately the types of threats that we see to that system started a really small
level and ultimately have grown to really big.
So from the small, everything from specifically how someone can return an absentee ballot can
be a threat to democracy.
In other words, the over regulation of issues like that to make it nearly impossible
for certain folks, that itself is a threat to democracy.
It's a threat to allowing everybody to actually participate.
But on the opposite end, or not opposite end, but the larger scale threats, I think we
saw a metastasized acutely during the 2020 election where literally there was an attempt
to subvert the presidential election.
And that type of direct threat is I think easier for people to perceive because it is
so obvious and was violent.
But that is not to say that there are not more, maybe granular or I think granular is
probably the right word, threats to just the overall system.
And it sort of runs the gamut.
We see it all.
Now one thing that I think has started to get conflated, unfortunately, is this capital
D democracy and small D democracy because law forward is a nonpartisan law firm, correct?
That's right.
And it's just that the series of events as they have happened, both in the state and nationally,
that there has been more alignment with Democrats in our state as far as the cases that your
law forward is working on.
But it's not that you are funded by capital D Democrats, right?
That's right.
I think one thing that we've seen across a whole host of issues the last few years is
that only one political party supports democracy issues.
And it has been conflated a lot if you're talking about voting rights, independent, nonpartisan
redistricting, or even access to things like public school funding or reproductive health
care, only one party has been championing those issues.
And it's not good for our democracy.
It's not healthy to have this sort of deep divide on issues that voters across the spectrum
support.
There are Republicans all across the state that support the same issues that we work on.
It is the gerrymandered legislature and the party leadership that has really been able
to hold hostage these just common sense policy solutions that folks across the board believe
are the best direction for our state.
I really appreciate you, you know, bringing up that there are, you know, people that vote
Republican across Wisconsin that hold these same values.
I mean, if people listen to my show, I was a Republican for 30 years.
I left the party in 2011 over voting issues.
And I like to make the distinction.
I'd be interested in what you all think.
I think there's a distinction between the folks that live in Vialas County and vote for
the local clerk of court because she runs as a Republican versus Republican leadership
like Robert Voss and David Lumberhue who are assessing out policy specifically for partisan
reasons.
Yeah, I mean, I think that what we've seen in Wisconsin the last decade is that Republican
party leadership's number one policy agenda has been to consolidate their own power.
And one of the biggest problems with the gerrymander is that none of our legislators
are accountable.
So we can't even talk about public policy solutions to the issues, families in Wisconsin
or facing or hold them accountable as far as I've had listeners and followers of my social
media, especially during most recently, the potential impeachment of Janet Protosewitz
of them trying to get a hold of their lawmaker and not feeling heard, let's put it that
way.
I mean, to your point, Todd, in 2011, things changed in Wisconsin and your ability as a
citizen to have effectively engage with the legislature, the door was shut.
I mean, the door was literally shut to people in the winter of 2011 and that could be
an analogy for the last decade of how this legislature has operated.
How do you make a Scott of, again, as a former Republican, it's rich to me that for years
they've spent time now saying, oh, we have to vote on election day only and, you know,
mostly Democrats, partisan Democrats are saying, hey, vote early, you know, whatever you
can, they get the information out.
Now that in the last election, Republicans did poorly, not everywhere, but some places,
now suddenly Republicans in the state of Wisconsin leadership is suddenly saying, oh, no, you
know, now you can vote early.
You know, if you want, what, what are you making this change in your, in your view?
Well, I mean, vote by mail, absentee voting, early voting, these are all very popular things
for all Wisconsinites, probably because it's easy.
For example, my fiance is a nurse, it's hard for her to literally get to the polling
place when you're working from seven to seven.
And so this is an issue that impacts people no matter what party you are.
It can be hard to get to the polls on election day.
And I think it's a pretty broadly understood principle that if we make that a little bit
easier, no matter what party you're in, you can maybe get some more votes.
And I think that's what people are reckoning with right now.
And I just want to quickly, maybe both of you can come in quickly again to reiterate
for people the 2020 election in the state of Wisconsin and in the country, but particularly
Wisconsin was one of the freest, fairest and most accurate elections in state history,
correct?
Yeah, that's absolutely right.
And analysis after analysis has shown that.
And I think anecdotal experiences that people had, it was an incredibly uncertain and scary
time 2020, right?
There was so much in the world that we didn't know what was going to happen.
And Wisconsin voters took their responsibility so seriously.
People planned ahead, people got out to vote because it matters.
It mattered who ended up in charge after that election.
And people all across the state just really stepped into their responsibility.
You're listening to Civic Media's year in review of democracy in Wisconsin in 2023.
Our guests are law forwards executive director Nicole Safar and staff council Scott Thompson.
And just to kind of lay the found framework for what we're going to go through for the
rest of the hour is there's some big cases coming up that you that law forward is litigating.
And so we definitely want to jump into the fake election electors litigation.
And then also one thing I know I care a lot about.
I think Todd cares a lot about too is Jerry Mandarin and redistricting and how that could
totally change 2024 elections in Wisconsin.
We already know that it's going to be a big year when it comes to the presidential election.
But we could have an entirely new legislature depending on how this case goes.
So we're going to take a break really quickly.
But when we come back more of a year review of democracy in Wisconsin in 2023.
Welcome back to the Civic Media year in review of democracy in Wisconsin from the past year 2023.
Of course, I'm tallable along with our fantastic co-host here.
Kristen Brie of As goes Wisconsin.
Kristen, it's just great to be routing out the year with you back in the same room.
I know you never get to do this.
I know it's very excited.
So you know, thank you to our guests for allowing Kristen and I to work together once again.
Our fantastic guests are Nicole Safar and she is the executive director of law forward
and staff council Scott Thompson.
Great to have you back with us.
We're going to get into this pentabaker versus hit and these fake electors.
Kristen, I look forward to this because you know, I like to say all roads lead back to
Richland Center Wisconsin, my hometown.
I actually went to church with Andrew Hittness family and his dad was my elder
teacher really.
I mean, I'm not like we don't go out and hang out and have cast roles together.
But you know, but if you saw him in the grocery store, would you say hi?
Well, sure.
Do you think you'd say hi back?
Probably he's a cordial person and that's part of the point is the guy is not intellectually
stupid.
And that's why I think this whole thing is so interesting.
But what do I know?
Let's ask our guests.
Let's ask our guests.
So Scott, when this is the first in the nation civil suit filed in 2021.
And how did you find out about this and bring it to national attention?
So the process of actually voting in the electoral college is weird.
I don't think many humans actually know how it works, but it involves sending copies
of documents to some random places across the country.
The archivist of the United States, Secretary of State of Wisconsin, the chief judge of
the local district here in the federal court system.
And so along with another organization, American oversight law forward sent open records
requests to see whether or not these votes were actually transmitted.
In other words, whether or not they actually tried to submit these false votes.
Yes, they did.
And we figured that out as a result of those open records requests.
So once we knew that they had met and they had sent the votes in, then it became really
clear to us that this, this rot, I suppose, went deeper than it initially seemed.
So the scheme, the national coordination, given that this is a national scheme, what
else can you tell us about what has happened in other states, such as, you know, did Trump
campaign, they kind of coordinate this in all the other states?
Well, they had slightly different wrinkles of the same thing in these other states.
Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada.
But what I think is clear is that there are a lot of people on the ground who felt a little
bit unsure, who felt a little bit disgusted, who felt sometimes completely, you know, opposed
to this plan.
But at the end of the day, in all of these states, various iterations of these votes were cast.
Sometimes they would put something on the top that said, yeah, this is contingent.
Maybe we'll get a court decision in our favor.
But in Wisconsin, that didn't happen.
And I think the big picture national scheme angle here in Wisconsin, that's interesting,
is that the whole thing started here.
It was a Wisconsin lawyer for the Trump campaign, who we know invited a different Wisconsin
lawyer, Chesbro, to join his work during the recount.
It was during that process, then a series of memos went out that outlined this entire
scheme.
And so it started here, was replicated elsewhere.
It looked a little bit different in different places, but at the end of the day, they submitted
false votes that they now acknowledge were used as part of an effort to try and subvert
the 2020 election.
So a quick follow up if I could.
One of the things that I find most fascinating, again, I don't know Andrew hit well, but
I know well enough to know he's an attorney in Deloitte, I'm going to establish firm.
He's not intellectually or legally stupid.
And one of the things I found interesting was as it came out on this settlement, was that
the, what are the excuses they were saying this interview we had last weekend was, oh,
I was duped.
I was duped.
And we wanted to preserve our legal right to, to challenge this if it came to that.
Yet correct me if I'm wrong, other states put a caveat in their challenges, saying we're
only going to do this if everything kind of, you know, legally goes to hell, Wisconsin
didn't do that.
Absolutely correct.
100% correct.
So was that just an oversight or was that on purpose from, I guess that's an opinion question.
I'm not sure if it's been, is that part of the settlement as far as what they have
or have not admitted to?
So the, the electors who have settled in this case have not specifically said, I think
what they knew on any specific moment, what they have acknowledged is that they met at
the request of the Trump campaign and at the request of the Republican Party of Wisconsin.
And to your point, I think that big picture, there's different levels of culpability for
these folks.
Like if you look at the text messages, the correspondence that was released as part of
our settlement, you'll see that some folks truly thought this was a bad idea.
And many of them thought it wasn't going to work.
But on the other other side of things, you know, Mr. Hit, as you referenced, was working
after December 14th, not only to make sure that the votes he executed were transmitted
in the first place, but he was literally making sure they got flown out on January 5th.
And that level of involvement is unique to him.
And I think speaks a little bit more to his level of responsibility.
So speaking of the settlement, I have been on the maternity leave as people who listen
to civic media now.
And so it's been interesting to be a casual consumer of news, as opposed to a fervent
consumer of news, as I usually am.
And so for those of us who have been casual in our news consumption, what is the baseline
that they should take away from what this settlement actually means?
Well, I think it is an understand, big picture, its accountability.
That's what it is.
The people involved acknowledged Joe Biden won the election.
They requested that all the entities they sent their votes to disregard them.
They asked that the public disregard those votes.
And at the end of the day, they said that their votes were used as part of an effort to
subvert the 2020 election.
And I think that provides or should provide the right framing on how to understand this.
This was not, you know, an accident.
This was not merely something that was just in one place or another.
This was really a national effort that was done to try and subvert a democratic election.
And I think that accountability piece is the key thing to take away.
Nicole, I think this lawsuit for me, certainly holding the accountability, holding the
accountable is part of it.
So the other thing I really appreciate about law-forward work is that to Scott's point,
because in depositions and this sort of thing, we get to kind of see behind the curtain.
The public does, like these text messages, to your point, Scott, where he says, yeah,
we're going to do this dot, dot, dot, and there's an emoji, I roll, which, you know, and
the other guy in this, you know, Mark Jefferson, the executive director of public and party,
there is a guy I actually do know pretty well.
Again, not a dummy, been several meetings with him.
He stabbed me in the back politically as a story for the other day.
I kind of know what this schmuck is like, but, but I think what you all have done by letting
the public see this is what are the best services to democracy and the people of Wisconsin.
Well, thank you so much.
I mean, accountability matters.
And I think, you know, what folks say now in hindsight is one thing, but all you have
to do is look at the real time communication and documents and what people were saying,
you know, at the moment, these decisions were being made.
And it's clear what the story is.
We don't have to tell the story.
The documents tell the story and there's been great reporting by the Washington Post and
the AP.
And it is, it truly is, they thought at the end of the day that no one was looking and
that, you know, we moved to, everyone was passed this, Joe Biden was president.
People, you know, go on to whatever they want to do next.
But this can't be the way our system works and there has to be accountability for people
who would try to subvert the will of the voters in Wisconsin, which is what the scheme was
all about.
All right.
Well, coming up next, I'm very excited to jump into the gerrymandering, the redistricting
case.
You're going to be a huge consequential case for Wisconsin coming next year, Clark VWEC.
You're listening to a year in review of democracy in Wisconsin in 2023 and that's coming up next.
Welcome back to a year in review of democracy in Wisconsin in 2023.
I am Kristen Brie of the Ascoles of Wisconsin, along with my good pal, Todd Alba of the Todd
Alba show.
And we are here talking to law forwards executive director Nicole Safar and staff counsel Scott
Thompson.
And we are going to dive in to the case that is 12 years in the making.
Now I only moved back to Wisconsin in 2020, but I knew even before I moved back how gerry
mandered our state is and while there's some people who like to continue to deny that that
is a fact, any democracy organization that has ever given us a grade, it's not a, it's
not a passing one when it comes to our, it does not, when it comes to our maps when it
comes to both congressional for people in the federal government, but also for our state
legislature, which has kept us in this cycle of no accountability when it comes to policy,
very, very popular policies that we've seen no progress on in the last decade.
And we're finally at the point where this could, we could be at the end.
There may be a slight at the end of the tunnel, which is the case that was filed as soon as,
literally, I think it was the next day after Jennifer justice, Jennifer to say what was inaugurated.
The next day, Clark V, WC was filed, correct, Nicole?
That timing is correct.
That timing is correct, because I remember, I remember posting something saying law forward
has no chill.
They went, they were right on top of this.
And so Nicole, give us some background of this litigation and how we got here after 12
years.
So I think in your intro, you set it up exactly right.
Like this has been a decade long project to break the partisan gerrymandered in Wisconsin.
And this current case is just the most recent iteration of a legal strategy to do so.
We've really seen litigation, investigative reporting, academic analysis that unequivocally
shows our current state legislative maps are some of the most extreme partisan gerrymandering
in the country.
No one actually disputes that.
And through different court cases, public policy discussions, local referendum, all across
this state, activists, elected leaders, and lawyers have been trying to fix it.
And this is the most recent attempt to try and get some fair maps in our state.
So this case that we fought law forward in our co-counsel at the campaign legal center
and Stafford Rosenbaum and the election law at Harvard filed is really a different kind
of case because it focuses on the voters and how the voters were harmed.
We have 19 plaintiffs from all across the state, voters who are geographically, racially,
economically diverse and who've been impacted by the gerrymandered.
We've got a college student, we've got a former local mayor, we've got nonprofit leaders,
small business owners.
And what our legal theory was is that we need to listen to the voters and hear how these
unconstitutional maps have impacted their lives.
And that is the case that we filed with the State Supreme Court.
So we argued in our petition that these maps violated several parts of the Wisconsin Constitution.
The gerrymandered was three of those claims were about the partisan gerrymandered.
We also argued that the maps were unconstitutional because they violated a constitutional principle
called contiguity.
And then we also argued that the maps are unconstitutional because they violated the basic separation
of powers the governor has this role, legislature has this role in instituting the maps.
So the court ultimately decided not to grapple with the gerrymandered claim.
So that is not the actual partisan gerrymandered is not an issue right now.
But whether or not these maps are constitutional and we'll get thrown out is and it is focused
around the maps being non-contiguous and the violation of separation of powers.
Can you define non-contiguous for those of us who I think I know but I if I had actually
write it down I would give myself a 50-50 chance of getting it right.
So what I have learned from the experts in this case what the Wisconsin Constitution requires
is that all districts be contiguous which means they cannot be made up of separate pieces
of detached territory all of the sides of the district have to touch.
And over half of our current districts do not fulfill that basic constitutional requirement.
Another way to think about this is that we have I think around 75 of our state legislative
districts do not meet the standard in the entire country.
There are only seven other state legislative districts that are non-contiguous.
So we are a complete outlier in this and these weirdly shaped districts that have blobs
of unattached voters within them have been used to perpetuate the gerrymander and really
divide our communities.
So as Christus said this is something near and dear to both our hearts and perhaps for
slightly different reasons you know to paraphrase Hamilton I was kind of in the room where
it happened back in 2011 last time these maps got gerrymanders working for former state
Senator Dale Schultz Republican and he's testified on our shoulder places look we in fact
Republican caucus had to sign non disclosure agreements to private law office across the
street and and this certainly was largely for political purposes.
We've also had my former boss was a Senate majority leader.
We've also had Tim Cullen a former Democratic majority leader on and he's quick to point
out look this has been happening since God was a boy no one party is guilty of gerrymandering
it is a bipartisan fault right but the difference is more recently the technology and the computer
technology and to your point Nicole that the computers could go in and literally carve
out houses to help create some of these islands and I think it just does a great disservice
to voters because some people like my neighbor votes for one person and I vote for somebody
else I think it almost intentionally confuses voters is that too far.
I don't think so and that's the exact stories we've heard from some of our plaintiffs about
you know really dividing communities it when you make your voice heard by voting you think
about your city and your county and your state legislative district and your state and
you work together with the people who live around you because you want policy solutions
that are local to your community and the way that our maps have been cut up and communities
have been divided has had a real detrimental impact not only on our ability to pass popular
policies through the state legislature but they've also helped to create this polarization
that has really denigrated the civic fabric of our state the gerrymandor hurts us from
a policy perspective but it is also one of the core reasons why people hate politics well
quick follow up uh Scott I just want to make sure that people understand make sure I have
it right because I was with a group of people this last weekend were pretty knowledgeable
and like I didn't know that if the Supreme Court goes and finds in favor of your lawsuit
correct or right or correct or not this would throw out all the legislative maps and force
everyone both 99 assembly people and 33 state senators all of them would have to run in
2024 not just the state senators that are due up correct that is the relief we've requested
yes what the court is ultimately can do of course you know at that's up to them um but I
think it's important to remember that those assembly districts that you know those are always
coming up what we're asking is that the unconstitutional senate districts that those all
be resolved as well I think that makes a big difference because you know what we're seeing
that my part of the state and Southwest Wisconsin Howard Mark line who's not up court
and quote this time he's doing a lot of a lot of campaign and a lot a lot of talking about
issue is I tell people there's a reason for that so let's just get everyone up to speed
on where we are in the process so as I said in August there was the case was filed in November
we heard oral arguments and so what is next I guess as far as a timeline and then I think
as a follow up and either of you can answer this as far as what are the potential outcomes
that could happen so for timing what is happening now is we are waiting for the justices to
essentially decide on whether or not they will throw the maps out or if the maps meet
constitutional muster and we'll keep them and that decision really could come any day oral
arguments were right before Thanksgiving so almost a month ago and we're just all kind of
waiting for that to happen and we should add that while we record this you know it's right
before the Christmas holiday we're looking out across the street at the Supreme Court waiting
for the smoke so there could be a decision at any time right like are you working today
and when's it going to happen I mean every day it's like is today the day do you just walk
by like peek and see you can see I'm like hey yes that is what we do so you know once we hear
from the court whether or not they think the maps are constitutional if they say yep gotta get
rid of these maps they're unconstitutional the next phase of the litigation will be the remedial
phase which means we have to find a solution to the problem of unconstitutional maps and we expect
that part of the case to kind of play out in January and February ultimately if the state gets
new maps we need them to be finalized by mid March so candidates who are going to be running in
the August primary in November general election have enough time to get their signatures so they
know where they live and they know what what number is on will be on their district door and so
with that piece so let's say the maps get thrown out we need new maps the granular decision of
what maps do we use now does the does the Supreme Court get to choose that or is it maps that were
already submitted in 2022 is it net new or what are what are kind of the options of what maps could we
have if these ones are thrown out so we've given the court what we think is the best option and that
is for the court to appoint a neutral referee and have that referee either develop the criteria
with the justice is about what a constitutional map looks like and then the parties could submit
maps that meet the criteria that the referee lays out the referee could draw the maps
themselves and and the court could ask the parties for feedback or the court could just say
we're going to do it I mean it really could be multiple options we think our option is the best
it is the way a lot of other states when courts have had to come in and fix
unconstitutional maps the way they have done it so it is kind of I don't want to say normal but it is
a regular practice and there are experts in all across the country who have a lot of experience
doing this sort of thing I'll come back and just clarify or pick up something Christa mentioned
at the top of the show which I think is really important to kind of dress a narrative out there
that oh geez you know law forward is doing this because they want to give maps to a big democratic
maps you know a small D or large D rather advantage I don't take that as your intent and I don't
think it serves the public well if if this lawsuit goes through and suddenly the they get jerry
mander in favor of democrats are plurically either that didn't seem to be your intent right that
is not the intent at all law forward thinks that partisan gerrymanders are unconstitutional regardless
of what party is doing it the purpose of throwing out these unconstitutional maps is to get closer
to fairer maps so we can have real policy debates in the state legislature and you know going back
to a question you had earlier Todd this idea that will everybody have to run again
are elected officials are they work for us and yes they have to run again that is their job
their one job is to be responsible to the voters in in their district and no elected official is
entitled to their spot that's true you work for us right well one of the things I wanted we don't
have time to do it right now but so when we come back I want to talk about why this case and the
outcome of this case if the graphs get thrown out is important and different than what happened
right before I was leaving on maternity leave which was the introduction oh let's let's adopt
the Iowa model that Robin Voss and the republicans wanted to we're now open to for the first time
and so I think it's important to draw the distinction of what they were trying to do and what this
case will do and so let's get to that after this this is the year in review of democracy in
Wisconsin in 2023 I'm getting the highest sign from Luke's throw over here we have a quicky a quicky
question for Scott here really quick and there the this legislature this lawsuit does not affect
congressional maps why does it not well this is a I mean we brought a claim from Wisconsin voters
who were hurt because of how the state constitutional boundaries were drawn and we're focused on that
issue I was headed you know you had to squeeze that in I was charged for killing time good point
good point all right well I am Kristen bry he is Todd alba she is Nicole so far and this is Scott
Thompson both from law forward this is civic media's year in review in democracy in Wisconsin in 2023
we have one more topic when we come back which is what to expect in 2024 there's gonna be a lot
happening so stay tuned
welcome back to civic videos here in review of democracy in Wisconsin in 2023
Todd alba joined by the fantastic Kristen bry host of as goes Wisconsin it's great to move into 2024
Kristen to have her shows back to back I think we're both gonna be looking at democracy and freedom
is as we move into 2024 absolutely we have something we've always done that right with a little
humor peppered in there the last segment we were talking about I think one of the most important
cases for Wisconsin of this year which is the gerrymandering gerrymandering case Clark v WEC and
mid-September I would say there was the about face that robin voss and republicans had as far as
for the first time ever they were now open to an Iowa style model when it came to redistricting and
wanted to push that legislation through and there was a lot of pushback from democrats but also
I think a lack of understanding of why this case was needed regardless of that legislation and
so Nicole what was the difference and why is this this case important regardless of what
policy or legislation would have been passed it with that this case is important because we
currently today have unconstitutional maps and we have had unconstitutional maps for the last
decade we need voters today need a remedy for the harm that has been perpetuated against them
and that's what this case is about it's about getting these maps thrown out today I don't think
anyone would disagree that we need a public policy solution to prevent partisan gerrymandering
in the future I think that you know what we've seen be best practice in other states is a
constitutional amendment a nonpartisan independent commission that can draw districts anytime you
have incumbent legislatures I don't care what party you're from who are in charge of drawing
their own districts the incentives are wrong we need nonpartisan independent redistricting and
we need that to be in our constitution for the long term solution I think it was we look also into
the 2024 whether or not we there's gonna be a separate lawsuit for these congressional maps and
but regardless if we get the legislative ones done first it's gonna hold people accountable and
it's going to change the psyche I think and Scott yes or no it forces people to
strike out more centrist positions well yeah like I said at the beginning democracy is a system
in which parties can lose elections so when any of these politicians have a little bit of skin
of the game I think it's a moderating factor at least less likely to you know engender extremism
and things like that I'm really excited for this I think this is something like what you've said
before it's something that's been 12 years in the making it's the first opportunity I think for a
lot of people to feel like they can believe and have like buy-in back in our political process because
and this is just anecdotal anecdotal anecdotally from tiktok comments that I've gotten but there's
a lot of people who's just have given up and they think well it doesn't matter who I vote for because
of the district that I live in and my person I've tried I've tried to call my rep it doesn't matter
they don't get back to me and so I think I'm so excited knock on was for the potential outcome of
this case because so much of my mission of the work that I do and I think Todd I can speak for
Todd is it's not who you vote for it's getting you civically engaged and this is just it's voter
suppression making people feel hopeless or apathetic is voter suppression so I am thankful for all
the work that you guys have done and as we go into 2024 Wisconsin once again will be center stage
because of the presidential election but beyond just the presidential election and making sure
that we once again have safe fair emphasis on safe elections what beyond just this case
is on tap for law forward yeah so we have been working with state partners and national partners
for the last several months to really lay the groundwork for what we think could happen in 2024
um you know we are very vigilant uh watching what some of the right-wing extremists are doing
with disinformation right we have seen that used as a really effective tactic in the election
administration space um we want to make sure that we are paying attention to what local county
municipal clerks like the support and resources that they need one of the reasons why our
election system is so um vulnerable to disinformation is it is completely decentralized
we have you know over 1400 or 1800 1800 there you go 1854 municipal and county clerks across the
state that are administering elections and there is a lot of room for uh right-wing pressure
disinformation to infiltrate that so we're working you know to give clerks the support that they
need to make sure that our um nonpartisan get out the vote partners have the legal support
that they need so people know how to register to vote how to get an absentee ballot cast an absentee
ballot what their rights are what they should expect what is normal and it's it's really a lot of
monitoring um and then providing you know the the best legal analysis to support pro-democracy voting
um we're really on the lookout for uh forces who might be trying to create new barriers to voting to
ensure that we're not putting up new blocks for people voting and then with the Republican
National Convention happening in Milwaukee this summer um we are very keyed into
preventing and mitigating opportunities for political violence what does that look like because
I live in Milwaukee and I think I'm on the split not not split ticket but I see both sides as far
as the opportunity like I know a lot of business owners in Milwaukee and there is we now have a sales
tax that we can take advantage of and so having this kind of massive event in Milwaukee is I can see
the argument of why it's good for Milwaukee and there is fear right there is fear that this could be
violent and ugly and we don't know and so what is legally or even activism-wise like the
plans going into effect to try to mitigate any of that from happening well I think a huge part
of that is really relationship building and different organizations whether it's business leaders
local elected officials activists um public safety folks knowing who to talk to when so building
those relationships and those those communication channels right now is critical um I think most of
us agree no matter what party you're in nobody wants these these big events to to be targets of
violence or to to um inside them but we have to be realistic and we've seen it happen before so
I think that that it is really important for all people to speak out clearly condemning
violence political violence isn't just um you know what we think of as physical violence it's
intimidation it's harassment it's all these things that make people scared to vote well uh
didn't really want to end on that much of a downer so Todd do you have something a little
more lighthearted I think this has been fantastic we appreciate you both for being here as we move
into 2024 what should voters know to safeguard their individual freedoms to vote well so first of all
I think voting is the most exciting and one of the most important things about being a Wisconsin citizen
an American citizen so it's important to make a plan to vote I figure out when you're going to do it
if you need to help your friends get there whatever it takes make your plan to vote actually
participate in our democracy because all these lawyers fight about a million things but it doesn't
matter unless people actually show up to the ballot box Nicole Safar and staff counsel Scott Thompson
thank you so much for your work thank you for being with us today thank you Todd alba for co-hosting
this with me this has been civic media's year interview of democracy in Wisconsin in 2023 we'll see
it in 2024
