 Hello, welcome to this week's show, Legislative Update. I'm Jim Baumgart, co-host with me is Nanette Bullabush from Elkhart Lake, and we have for the viewers, we think a very important program that deals with elections and fairness, and U.S. Supreme Court decision that's going to take place in 2018, and to discuss this important decision that's upcoming. We have invited Mary Lynn Donnie, who is a person that's involved in the case. That's it. Welcome to the program. Thank you. I'm delighted to be here. Exciting, isn't it? And it's really exciting for me. And our whole fairness of the election process, we've done this. It's a pretty important issue. So we're waiting the outcome of the case, but it should be pretty important one way or the other. When was it heard, and when are you hoping for a decision? So the case is called Whitford v. Gill, and Ms. Gill was head of the Elections Commission at that time. That's how the case got its name. Bill Whitford is the lead plaintiff. He was a professor in law school when I went to UW Madison. And there were 12 of us plaintiffs from around the state representing districts that either had been cracked or packed. And we maybe can talk a little bit about that. But in the 2011 redistricting process that the Republican Assembly did, that is an example of what we argue is extreme gerrymandering, which takes the ability of particularly Democratic voters to express and through voting who they would like to have represent them because their candidates can't win. And it was heard, Nanette, in October, October 3rd before the Supreme Court. I was there, I mean, incredibly exciting in Washington, D.C., incredibly exciting experience for me. And I was right up front. And we had about a half an hour wait when we finally got in. We got in line at six in the morning. We got into the courtroom about 9.30. And then the argument started at 10. And it was, I'm a lawyer geek. So this is like cotton candy for me. I loved it. It was just so much fun. And these court hearings are a mystery to us because they're not televised. They are not. But at least I have an image of my hero, heroine Ruth Bader Ginsburg sitting so wise and the other women who are now in the court and all of them. What's anything surprise you? Anything you didn't expect when you were there? Well, it was just interesting to see. They sit in kind of a semi-circle. And just to see those personalities in place. Yeah, right there. And so I was surprised, like you, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a heroine for me. She's a rock star. She is a rock star. And she's this tiny little thing. I know. And the chairs are big. And she's kind of curled up. And twice, there's a tendency to talk over her. And she fights right back. And twice she asked during the oral argument, what about our precious right to vote? And so listening to the questions that the justices ask of each side has one lawyer, listening to those questions, trying to get a sense of if it reflects how the justice might be thinking. So it was one hour of very, very intense concentration for me. And I was just so pleased to be there. Our lawyer, Paul Smith, is brilliant. Our theory on why this gerrymandering is bad for democracy, I think was brilliantly drawn by our lawyers. But of course, I'm prejudice. So we'll see. You're cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court will rule in your favor and against the state of Wisconsin or the state lawmakers who made those decisions back in 2011. Well, like I say, I have this irisense of doom. So whenever I think something's going to work, it doesn't. So we want to say I am not cautiously optimistic, but you're watching. But we're watching. And the decision needs to come down before the end of June, because that's when the term ends. If our side were to win, I don't think there would be any possibility of redrawing the maps for the 2018 election, because that's nomination papers to be in by June 1. But I think by 2020, those new maps would be in place. Hard to know. And so the ideal outcome is that Wisconsin lawmakers, for 2020, when the new census comes out anyway, will have to redraw our voting boundaries, our districts, in a more fair way. Exactly. Exactly. And just how unfair are they now? They are bad unfairly right now. Well, what happened in 2010 is there was sort of, that was the Republican, you know, wave year. In the whole country. In the whole country, and that happens. Sure. I mean, we have those Democrats and Republicans. So the Republicans were in total control of Wisconsin government, the governor, the legislature, and arguably the courts. We don't like to talk about partisan courts, but you do get justices philosophies about conservatives and progressives. Yeah, exactly. And the assembly redrew these maps, based on the 2010 census, in private. And they had a room in a private law office called the Map Room that was locked. And so they had a professor who was very skilled in these things. And of course, the demographic data now is so sophisticated in ways that it didn't used to be. They were able to predict that in 2012, the Republican assembly would be about two-thirds Republican and one-third Democrat. It seemed it was particularly galling since in 2012, the Democrats statewide got 250,000 votes more. More votes than the Republicans. And they lost more seats. And they lost a lot of seats, actually. And that's just because of the way the district was drawn. I live in the 26th. You are in the 27th. 27th, right? You're in the 27th now. But you used to be in the 26th, which was the whole city. The city has been cracked in half, more or less in half. And so the northern part of the city went to the 27th. The southern part of the city went to the 26th. These are both very conservative areas. And so now the 26th, which was typically democratic, not always, but typically, it's very difficult to see under this map. Unusual if a Democrat would win. It'd be very hierarchical. The 27th has always been pretty Republican, but close. But now it's not close. It's not close at all. So whoever is elected as a Republican will stay forever in this. Another Republican runs in the primary to beat him. And that was one of our arguments before the court is that this creates a permanent majority. Because even if the census were to change dramatically in 2020, the Republicans are still in control of the legislature. And they'll continue to draw the districts in such a way that Democrats just can't win. And it's a profoundly unfair, and we argue, unconstitutional situation. No matter if it was in another state, where Republicans were put into that disadvantage. As a matter of fact, the US Supreme Court recently took a case similar to ours from Maryland, where the Democrats did it. Where there was pretty extreme gerrymandering. And we think that perhaps the court is going to rule on those two cases together. They have slightly different legal theories. So it'll be interesting to see if it's going to be so interesting to see what the court does. And we're very excited about it. I think you said that out of the 99 assembly districts in Wisconsin, only nine of them are competitors. Are considered competitors. The others are so solidly Republican or solidly Democrat it'd be very difficult for someone from the other party to win. Only nine where there is actually a contest. That's interesting to watch. I just find that incredible. Well, it's not Democratic, is it? No. I mean, really, and if you keep one of our arguments, as I said, was that this permanent majority is, this is the best chance that gerrymandering opponents have ever had for this to come before the court. We have a measurable way. It's called the efficiency gap. And I won't get into it because it's fairly complicated. But it is part of our theory is that we can measure. Judge Justice Kennedy said, well, we shouldn't be involved in legislative matters, which is true to an extent. But now we can say to him, you can get involved, but we have a measurement for you. It's a juicable controversy. And so we think that we've brought this to the best possible posture for a favorable decision, but hard to know. And you said other states have figured out more equitable ways to do this. Right. Both Arizona and Iowa have. But not many states. No, not many yet. Well, what legislature wants to give up its power to draw the line? I mean, that's politics. And there's always going to be some gerrymandering going on or some redistricting mischief. I mean, that's just politics. It's just when it gets so extreme that there's no way of working your way out of it. So these citizen commissions are good, but they're appointed by partisan leaders. I was right now in the Senate, but of course it won't get a hearing because it comes from Democrats. Senate Bill 13 establishes that the legislative reference bureau, which is an agency of the state, and the agency that drafts most of the legislation, I mean, if you want to get from point A to point B, you call the LRB and say, do this for me. They're very nonpartisan. And they are widely regarded. Jim, I think that's true. Everybody agrees that they're nonpartisan, and everybody wants to keep them nonpartisan. Exactly. That's one thing in this government that we want to do. Because Republicans and Democrats both need that service, and they want it to be fair. Exactly. So if this bill could get a hearing, I think it's really a nice approach. But again, because the Democrats don't come close, at least in the assembly, it will never get a hearing. I mean, so this is a point in fact of when you have these really entrenched majorities that there's no way out of. That is something that if enough citizens raise their voice and contacted our lawmakers, no matter what party they're from, and say, can't you at least give this a hearing? Well, 35 county boards have come on board with resolutions supporting a fair election process. And not Sheboygan. Not Sheboygan. Well, Jim, you're at the county board. Well, I'm at the county board. I can introduce a resolution and may still do that. And surprisingly, in both rural and urban areas, there's a wonderful group in Milwaukee called the Fair Elections Project, chaired by a Republican and Democrat, Dale Schultz and Tim Cullen. Oh, sure. They're going around the state talking about this. Is Dale Schultz retired? Well, yes. Yes. Right. Yeah. And these are two guys that are saying this system is broken, we can't keep doing it. And so I think there's hope. Either through the courts or through people power, because really, when it all comes down to it, it is the people. And I think people in general, citizens are pretty wound up about the fact that these maps are so in favor. We must end the program, but it's important that we bring the issue to the viewers and the cable network so that they understand that there are people trying to make sure that we have equal votes, get representative in the process and not a gerrymandering system that leaves people to think their votes don't count, because every vote should count. So, A, make sure that you come out and vote in the next election. And B, watch the Supreme Court ruling that'll come out in 2018. Thank you, Mary Lynn Donahue. Until next week, this has been Legislative Update.