Here & Now for May 5, 2023

>> THE FOLLOWING PROGRAM IS A PBS WISCONSIN ORIGINAL PRODUCTION.

>> PATIENCE IN WISCONSIN CAN'T COUNT ON GETTING THE CARE THAT THEY NEED WHEN THEY NEED IT, THEY CAN'T TRUST THAT THEY WILL.

PHYSICIANS CAN'T TRUST THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE PUT BEHIND BARS DOING WHAT THMP TRAINED TO BE DOING.

>> THE 1849 ABORTION BAN BEGAN IN COURT AND RACIST COMMENTS FROM A UW MADISON STUDENT SPARKED OUTRAGE NATIONWIDE.

I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.

TONIGHT ON "HERE & NOW," A LEGAL EXPERT EXPLAINS THE LAWSUITS CHALLENGING ABORTION STATUTES ON THE BOOKS.

PROTESTS OVER A VIRAL VIDEO WITH RACIST COMMENTS FROM A UW MADISON STUDENT.

WE HEAR MORE DETAILS BEHIND THE G.O.P.

SHARED REVENUE PLAN AND A LOOK AT THE STATE'S RELIANCE ON IMMIGRANT LABOR.

IT'S "HERE & NOW" FOR MAY 5.

>> FUNDING FOR "HERE & NOW" IS PROVIDED BY THE FOCUS FUND FOR JOURNALISM AND FRIENDS OF PBS WISCONSIN.

♪ >> A DANE COUNTY JUDGE THIS WEEK HEARD ARGUMENTS WHETHER TO DISMISS ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH KAUL'S LAWSUIT OVER WISCONSIN'S ABORTION STATUTES.

A NEAR TOTAL BAN ON ABORTIONS FROM 1849 IS BACK ON THE BOOKS AFTER THE U.S. SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED ROE VERSUS WADE.

THE ARGUMENTS IN COURT FOCUSED ON DISTRICT ATTORNEY JOEL URMANSKI'S MOTION TO DISMISS.

KAUL AND ATTORNEYS ON HIS SIDE ARGUE A MORE PERMISSIVE ABORTION LAW PASSED IN 1985 CONFLICTS WITH THE EARLIER STATUTE AND ALSO THAT THE EARLIER BAN IS NULLIFIED BY NOT BEING ENFORCED FOR SO LONG.

>> FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THE PLAINTIFF'S LAWSUIT IS UNPRECEDENTED IN WISCONSIN HISTORY.

THE PLAINTIFFS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHER STATE OFFICIALS AND AGENCIES HAVE SUED DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, OTHER STATE OFFICERS, OVER WHAT AMOUNTS TO A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AND THE PLAINTIFFS A OWN DESIRE TO KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS.

>> THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE ABLE TO KNOW BEFORE THEY ACT WHAT IS AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL SANCTION.

IT CANNOT BE THAT WISCONSIN LAW TELLS THE WISCONSIN PUBLIC THAT THE SAME FACTUAL ACTS ARE BOTH LAWFUL AND ILLEGAL AT THE SAME E TIME.

>> HERE TO UNPACK THIS COMPLICATED CASE, UW LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR, THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

AS YOU LISTEN TO THESE ARGUMENTS IN COURT, DID ANYTHING SURPRISE YOU?

>> THERE WERE NO MAJOR SURPRISES.

IT WAS A LENGTHY, RIGOROUS ARGUMENT.

THE JUDGE ASKED PROBING QUESTIONS OF BOTH SIDES.

JUDGE AND ATTORNEYS WERE ALL VERY WELL PREPARED.

IF THERE WAS A NOTABLE FEATURE OF THE CASE OR OF THE ARGUMENT, IT WAS JUST HOW MUCH UNCERTAINTY SURROUNDS WISCONSIN LAW RIGHT NOW.

THERE WERE NEARLY TWO HOURS OF ARGUMENT ABOUT HOW THIS INTERLOCKING WEB OF STATUTES FITS TOGETHER OR DOESN'T, AND I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO THE LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY THAT THE STATE FACES.

THERE ARE OTHER STATES AROUND THE COUNTRY THAT HAVE SETTLING IN ONE WAY OR NEAR THE ISSUE OF ABORTION BUT WISCONSIN REMAINS IN LIMBO.

YOU HEARD THE PHYSICIAN ATTORNEY SPEAK TO THAT SAYING THAT THE PHYSICIANS ARE NOT PERFORMING CARE THEY WERE TRAINED TO PROVIDE NOT BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A COURT RULING BUT ACTUALLY BECAUSE THERE HASN'T BEEN ONE.

>> GIVEN THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT THIS WEEK, DID THEY RISE TO OUTRIGHT DISMISSING OF THIS LAWSUIT, IN YOUR MIND?

>> DEFENDANT URMANSKI IS CORRECT THAT THIS DOCTRINE THAT'S CALLED IMPLIED REPEAL IS PRETTY DISFAVORED BY COURTS.

THAT MEANS THAT COURTS WILL GENERALLY TRY TO RECONCILE AND HARMONIZE ALL THE PARTS OF A LAW AND GIVE EACH ONE MEANING, BUT THE PLAINTIFFS ARGUMENT IS THAT THAT CAN'T BE DONE HERE, AS YOU HEARD IN THE CLIP, THAT THESE ARE JUST IRRECONCILABLE.

TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT FINDS IT TO BE A CLOSE CASE, THAT WOULD CUT IN FAVOR OF NOT DISMISSING THE CASE BECAUSE AT THIS STAGE OF THE LITIGATION, THE CASE IS TO BE DISMISSED ONLY IF THE LAW IS CLEAR-CUT AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS.

>> COUNTY JUDGE DISMISS THE CASE AGAINST THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND NOT THE DOCTORS?

>> THE DOCTORS ARE INTERVENING AS PLAINTIFFS.

SO THE QUESTION THAT'S PENDING ABOUT THE PARTIES IS ABOUT WHETHER THE STATE PLAINTIFFS ARE ALSO INVOLVED ENOUGH IN THE PROVISION OF ABORTION THAT THEY HAVE LEGAL STANDING TO BE THERE, BUT THE DEFENDANTS WOULD REMAIN IN THE SUIT UNLESS THE MOTION IS GRANTED AND THE CASE CAN DISMISSED ON ITS MERITS.

>> CAN TWO STATUTES CONFLICT, AS IN THIS CASE, ARGUABLY, ONE OLDER AND ONE MORE RECENT?

>> THERE ARE, AND THAT'S A LOT OF WHAT THE PARTIES WERE DEBATING AT THE ORAL ARGUMENT, WHICH IS IS THIS SITUATION CLOSE ENOUGH TO THOSE CASES WHERE IMPLIED REPEAL HAS BEEN FOUND AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE JUDGE WILL LIKELY BE SORTING OUT AS SHE PROCESSES THE BRIEFS.

>> THE JUDGE SUGGESTED IN THIS CASE, I IN THE, THAT THE 1849 LAW WAS FET I CRIED AND NOT ABORTION.

WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN FOR LAWSUIT OR ABORTION LAW IN WISCONSIN?

>> WHAT THE JUDGE AND THE PARTIES WERE REFERRING TO THERE WAS A 1994 WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT OPINION THAT REACHED THAT CONSTRUCTION OF A DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE SAME ABORTION LAW.

SO IT LOOKED AT A RELATIVELY SIMILAR SITUATION, TRYING TO RECONCILE NEWER STATUTES WITH OLDER ONES, AND IT SAID THAT THAT EARLIER STATUTE WAS JUST LIMITED TO THIS FETICIDE.

THE CASE IS NOT ON POINT BECAUSE IT WASN'T ABOUT THE SECTION OF THE STATUTE THAT'S AT ISSUE HERE, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE COURT AND THE PARTIES WERE REFERRING TO AND THE PLAINTIFFS' ARGUMENT IS THAT THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE COURT TO FOLLOW IN THIS CASE.

>> SO JUST HEARING YOU SPEAK, THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED, AND AS YOU SAID AT THE BEGINNING, THESE AREN'T THE KINDS OF ISSUES THAT OTHER STATES ARE ADDRESSING AROUND ABORTION LAW.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER STATES IN WHICH THE QUESTION THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT IS ONE ABOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION.

THIS CASE IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT'S ON THIS NARROWER AND MORE TECHNICAL ISSUE OF HOW THE STATUTE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AND HOW ALL OF ITS PROVISIONS SHOULD BE WRITTEN TOGETHER.

>> SO DID THIS HEARING PROVIDE CLUES AS TO LEGAL ACTORS GOING FORWARD?

>> THERE WERE NO MAJOR NEW SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS, I THINK, AT THE HEARING.

THE ONE NOTABLE FEATURE WAS THAT, ALTHOUGH THERE IS AN ARGUMENT IN THE CASE ABOUT DISUSE, WHICH IS THAT THE 1849 PROVISION IS NO LONGER ENFORCEABLE BECAUSE OF A LONG PERIOD OF DISUSE, THAT WASN'T REALLY ADDRESSED AT THE HEARING.

MORE OF THE FOCUS WAS ON THIS DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED REFEEL AND IF THE MOTION TO DISMISS IS NOT GRANTED, THEY'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT FIRST.

>> SO AS TO THAT DISUSE OF THE LAY, IS THAT A THING?

HAS THAT BEEN THROWN OUT BEFORE BECAUSE OF THAT?

>> IT'S A LEGAL CONCEPT THAT'S ROOTED IN IDEAS ABOUT FAIR NOTICE SO IF SOMETHING REALLY HASN'T BEEN ENFORCED FOR A LONG TIME, THEN PERHAPS IT WOULD BE UNJUST OR EVEN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO JUST SORT OF REVIVE IT, BUT IT IS LIKE IMPLIED REPEAL.

IT'S NOT A DOCTRINE THAT'S COMMONLY APPLIED ENTER SO IN TERMS OF COURT PROCESS AND THE TIME LINE HERE, WOULD IT BE YOUR EXPECTATION THAT THIS WILL GO TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT, AND IF SO, WILL DO SO AFTER THE NEWLY ELECTED LIBERAL JUSTICE PROTASIEWICZ IS SEATED?

>> I THINK THE CASE WILL PROBABLY REACH THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT, BUT IT'S STILL AT A PRETTY EARLY STAGE.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STEPS THAT STILL NEED TO BE GONE THROUGH AT THE LOWER COURTS SO IT PROBABLY WON'T REACH THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT IN THE VERY NEAR TERM.

>> ALL RIGHT.

PROFESSOR, THANKS VERY MUCH.

>> MY PLEASURE.

>> TURNING TO EDUCATION, ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES MAY REPORTEDLY BE HELD HOSTAGE BY REPUBLICANS IF THE UW SYSTEM DOES NOT AGREE TO ELIMINATE OFFICES RELATED TO DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION, A TREND BEING SEEN NATIONWIDE.

THIS NEWS COMES THE SAME WEEK A SOCIAL MEDIA VIDEO OF A UW MADISON STUDENT HURLING RACIST SLURS HAS GONE VIRAL.

OUTRAGE OVER THE STUDENT'S COMMENTS PROMPTED PROTESTS ON CAMPUS AND A LIST OF DEMANDS FROM THE STUDENT-LED BLACK POWER COALITION, DELIVERED TO THE OFFICE OF UW MADISON CHANCELLOR, JENNIFER NOOK KIN, INCLUDING ACADEMIC ACCOMMODATIONS, MENTAL HEALTH RESOURCES AND COMPULSION OF THE STUDENT IN THE VIDEO.

>> I WOULD SAY THAT A LOT OF STUDENTS' INITIAL THOUGHTS WERE SHOCK, CONFUSION AND PAIN.

EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, ACTS LIKE THESE ARE NOT UNCOMMON HERE AND WE DECIDED THAT THIS WAS THE TIME TO REALLY BAND TOGETHER IN ORDER TO MAKE THESE THINGS NOT CONTINUE TO BE A REOCCURRENCE.

AMONOOK KIN'S RESPONSE ACKNOWLED HARM CAUSED BUT SAYING AS TO THE INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE RACIST VIDEO, THERE ARE NUMEROUS LEGAL CONSTRAINTS, BOTH ON WHAT WE CAN SAY AND WHAT WE CAN DO AS A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY, EVEN THOUGH THE VIDEO IS BOTH HATEFUL AND HARMFUL, I KNOW THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR, BUT WE ARE ALSO MOUND TO OBEY THE LAW.

DESPITE THAT, MORE THAN 50,000 PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED A PETITION CALLING FOR THE STUDENT IN THE RACIST VIDEO TO BE EXPELLED.

HERE TO TALK MORE ABOUT ALL OF THIS IS INTERIM PROVOST ERIC WILCOTS.

THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.

>> MY PLEASURE.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> TELL US WHY THE UNIVERSITY CANNOT DISCIPLINE THIS STUDENT.

>> IT'S A GREAT QUESTION AND ONE WE GET A LOT.

I KNOW FOLKS ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE ANSWER, BUT LET ME POINT A COUPLE OF THINGS.

ONE IS WITH FEDERAL LAW, PARTICULARLY SOMETHING CALLED FERPA, WE CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT THAT INDIVIDUAL CASE.

THE OTHER THING IS WE HAVE SEEN CASES AFTER CASE, AND IT'S REALLY ESTABLISHED CASE LAW OF INSTANCES AT A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY WHERE THIS KIND OF SPEECH, AS ABHORRENT AS IT IS, AS HORRIBLE AS IT IS, IS PROTECTED SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

BECAUSE OF THAT, WE ARE NOT ABLE TO GET -- ACT ON THIS, EVEN THOUGH THIS SPEECH IS ABSOLUTELY HORRID BECAUSE IT IS PROTECTED SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE COUNTRY.

>> BLACK STUDENT LEADERS TOLD US THAT THEY WERE DISAPPOINTED IN THE RESPONSE TO THE SITUATION BY THE CHANCELLOR.

AS IT DIDN'T FEEL, THEY SAID, LIKE A CALL TO ACTION.

WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?

>> I THINK THE CHANCELLOR'S COMMUNICATION AND RESPONSE STARTED OUT FIRST BY SHE AND THE ENTIRE LEADERSHIP TEAM ARE DEEPLY, DEEPLY HURT BY THIS.

THIS IS HA ABHORRENT, AND WE DO APOLOGIZING TO THE STUDENTS AND OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY WHO ARE OFFENDED BY THIS.

THIS IS HORRIBLE.

SUSTAIN THAT, THEN WHAT IS IT THAT WE CAN DO GOING FORWARD TO BE BETTER?

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE AS A CAMPUS, IF WE REALLY DEDICATED TO, PARTICULARLY OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF GREAT DIRECTIONS IN THIS SPACE.

I WANT TO POINT TO THE REBECCA M. CENTER, THE CENTER THAT WE HAVE, SO WE'RE MAKING STEPS.

WE HAVE INCREASED THE DIVERSITY OF THE STUDENT BODY OVERALL OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, AND I DEEPLY RECOGNIZE.

I'VE BEEN ON THIS CAMPUS 27 YEARS.

WE HAVE NOT MADE GREAT PROGRESS IN INCREASING THE PERCENTAGE OF BLACK STUDENTS ON OUR CAMPUS AND WE NEED TO DO BETTER AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK TOWARDS DOING BETTER.

SO WE ARE MAKING STEPS.

THE STUDENTS HAD -- IN THEIR DEMANDS A SET OF ISSUES WHERE WE AS CAMPUS LEADERSHIP REALLY WANT TO SIT DOWN AND THINK ABOUT HOW CAN WE MOVE FORWARD ON A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN AND THAT'S THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE GOING FORWARD.

>> YOU JUST SPOKE ABOUT THE KIND OF LACK OF DIVERSITY, PARTICULARLY DIVERSITY OF BLACK STUDENTS.

ON THIS CAMPUS AND SYSTEM-WIDE, SYSTEM-WIDE, IT SITS AT SOMETHING LIKE 2.9% OF THE STUDENT POPULATION.

SO HOW DO YOU CHANGE THAT?

>> WITH A LOT OF HARD WORK, AND I THINK SOME OF THAT HARD WORK HAPPENS ON OUR ADMISSION SIDE, ON OUR OUTREACH INTO DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES TO RECRUIT STUDENTS TO COME TO UW MADISON.

PART OF THAT IS OUR ABILITY TO BRING SCHOLARSHIP AND OTHER DOLLARS TO THE TABLE TO TAKE THAT FINANCIAL CONCERN OFF THE TABLE, TO BE ABLE TO RECRUIT STUDENTS.

PART OF THAT IS WHAT KIND OF PROGRAMMING DO WE HAVE, WHAT KIND OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS DO WE HAVE THAT EXCITES STUDENTS ABOUT BEING HERE.

I FEEL LIKE YOU'RE ABOUT TO JUMP IN.

>> I WAS GOING TO ASK, IS PART OF THAT THE CULTURE.

>> PART OF THAT IS THE CULTURE.

IF YOU LISTEN TO MNOOKIN'S WORDS, A CLEAR FOCUS ON WHAT SHE IS CALLING FLOURISHING, AND THAT IS THAT NOTION THAT WE ALL BELONG AT UW MADISON, REGARDLESS OF OUR RACE AND ETHNICITIES, TO GET THAT SENSE OF FLOURISHING.

HOW DO WE DOOR THAT?

HOW DO WE BEGIN TO CHANGE MINDS?

AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS EMERGED OVER THE PAST 48 HOURS, AND I'VE SEEN A LOT OF EMAIL FROM DIFFERENT ACADEMIC UNITS ON CAMPUS DOING A BIT OF THAT SELF-REFLECTION, SAYING, OKAY, WHAT IS IT THAT WE NEED TO BE DOING WITHIN OUR PARTICULAR UNIT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR CLIMATE, OUR CULTURE IS ONE THAT IS WELCOMING AND INCLUSIVE OF ALL.

>> HOW MUCH DOES THIS KIND OF THING SET ALL OF THAT BACK?

>> IT'S A DING.

IT'S A DING.

WE WILL HAVE TO -- IT'S A STEP BACK WASHED.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO KEEP CHARGING FORWARD AND I THINK WE'RE ALL DEDICATED TO DOING THAT.

I'VE BEEN A DEAN FOR THE LAST FOR YEARS, BUT ON CAMPUS FOR 27 YEARS.

I'VE SEEN IN MY COLLEAGUES A REAL COMMITMENT AND DEDICATION TO NOT JUST THAT DEXTROMETHODEMOGRAPHICS,IT'S EAE OUR NUMBER, BUT HOW DO WE MAKE SURE WE'RE CHANGING THAT CULTURE.

>> I WANTED TO GET YOUR REACTION TO THE IDEA THAT THE REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE WOULD LIKE TO ELIMINATE CAMPUS DIVERSITY OFFICE IN RETURN FOR STATE FUNDING.

>> I THINK THAT'S A HORRIBLE IDEA, AND I THINK THIS INCIDENT PROVES THE NEED THAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON MAKING SURE OUR CAMPUSES ARE OPEN AND WELCOMING FOR EVERYBODY AND THAT REQUIRES DEDICATED PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE IN THESE POSITIONS WHO ARE ALLOWING US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THE BEST PRACTICES AND THAT'S WHAT THESE ROLES CAN DELIVER FOR OUR CAMPUS AND DECREE WHAT OUR STUDENTS ARE REALLY ASKING FOR.

>> ERIC WILCOTS, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU.

>> REPUBLICANS THIS WEEK RELEASED THE DETAILS OF THEIR PLAN TO INCREASE SHARED REVENUE, WHICH WOULD INCREASE FUNDING FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY AT LEAST 10%.

IT WOULD ALSO ASK MILWAUKEE VOTERS WHETHER TO INCREASE THE LOCAL SALES TAX BY 2% IN ORDER TO PAY OFF DEBTS TO THE COUNTY'S PENSION SYSTEM.

HOWEVER, THE PLAN ALSO HAS NON-MONETARY STRINGS ATTACHED, LIKE A MINIMUM NUMBER OF POLICE OFFICERS RETURN TO SCHOOLS IN THE MILWAUKEE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR PROHIBITING A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FROM PUTTING AN ADVISORY REFERENDUM QUESTION ON A BALLOT.

GOVERNOR TONY EVERS SAID HE WOULD VETO THE PLAN AS IT IS NOW IN ITS ENTIRETY.

FOR MORE ON THE SHARED REVENUE PLAN, WE TURN TO ROB HENKEN, PRESIDENT OF THE RESEARCH GROUP, WISCONSIN POLICY FORM.

ROB, THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> SO JUST WHEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COULD TASTE THE RELIEF IN THEIR SHARED REVENUE AND IN THEIR BUDGETS, A POSSIBLE IMPASSE WITH THE GOVERNOR'S THREAT OF A VETO.

HOW FAR APART ARE REPUBLICANS AND THE GOVERNOR NOW ON THIS PLAN?

>> SO I OBVIOUSLY DON'T HAVE ANY INSIDE KNOWLEDGE, BUT I WILL SAY THAT UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS SAUSAGE MAKING, SAUSAGE MAKING IS NOT PRETTY.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY COULD HAVE REASONABLY EXPECTED THAT THIS WAS GOING TO GO COMPLETELY SMOOTHLY.

I THINK FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT THERE IS SOLID AGREEMENT AMONG LEADERS OF BOTH PARTIES THAT NOT ONLY BOOSTING THE AMOUNT OF SHARED REVENUE, BUT TYING IT PERMANENTLY TO A PERCENTAGE, IN THIS CASE, ONE-FIFTH OF THE DA STATE SALESX IS SOMETHING THAT THEY AGREE ON, AND THAT WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, BOTH IN THE IMMEDIATE FUNDING INCREASE IT WILL PROVIDE OVER THE NEXT TWO-YEAR BUDGET, BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF ENSURING THAT THERE IS SOME REVENUE SOURCE.

>> HOW USUAL IS IT TO HAVE RESTRICTIONS AS TO HOW THE MONEY WILL BE SPENT OR NOT ALLOWING LOCAL REFERENCE.

>> IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION.

OBVIOUSLY, STATE GOVERNMENT HAS A GREAT DEAL OF AUTHORITY IN TERMS OF THE RESTRICTIONS IT CAN PLACE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, THE PARAMETERS IT CAN SET FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE CASE OF DPTS IN PARTICULAR, COUNTIES ARE REALLY ARMS OF STATE GOVERNMENT.

HOWEVER, YOU CAN LOOK AT IT THE OTHER WAY, TOO, AND THAT'S THE CHAIR REVENUE IS DIFFERENT.

THIS WAS A COMMITMENT MADE BY STATE LEADERS MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS AGO WHEN THE STATE WAS THE FIRST IN THE NATION TO ADOPT AN INCOME TAX AND THERE WAS THIS PRINCIPLE THAT HAS THE STATE COLLECTED BOTH SALES AND INCOME TAXES AND THE ABILITY OF GOVERNORS TO DO LIKEWISE WAS EITHER ELIMINATED OR SIGNIFICANTLY RESTRICTED, THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME COMMITMENT TO SHARING THOSE REVENUES SO PUTTING FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON IT, ARGUABLY DOES MAKE THIS A DIFFERENT ANIMAL.

>> HOW HAMSTRUNG IS THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE LIKE POTENTIALLY FACING BANKRUPTCY WITHOUT NEW MONEY OR THE ABILITY TO RAISE IT?

>> I WOULDN'T D GO SO FAR AS TO SAY BANKRUPTCY, BUT I WOULD CERTAINLY SAY DRACONIAN SERVICE CUTS WOULD BE TO BE ADOPTED IN ORDER TO FILL A BUDGET HOLE AS DEEP AS THE ONE THAT THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE WOULD FACE WHEN THESE FEDERAL PANDEMIC RELIEF DOLLARS ARE EXHAUSTED AFTER 2024.

IT'S ROUGHLY 120 TO $150 MILLION BUDGET HOLE IN A GENERAL PURPOSE BUDGET OF $650 MILLION AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT POLICE AND FIRE ARE MORE THAN HALF OF THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE'S BUDGET, NOT ONLY IS THERE NO WAY TO AVOID POSITION CUTS IN GENERAL, BUT THERE IS NO WAY TO AVOID VERY DEEP PUBLIC SAFETY POSITION AND SERVICE CUTS AND, REALLY, I THINK THAT'S THE FACTOR THAT'S BRINGING EVERYBODY TO THE TABLE HERE.

>> ARE THE POLITICS OF RESENTIMENT AS THE BOOK TITLE DESCRIBED STILL AT PLAYED FOR REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS FROM RURAL DISTRICTS WHEREBY OUTSIDE VOTERS BELIEVE THAT MILWAUKEE GETS TOO MUCH MONEY?

>> YOU KNOW, THE ARGUMENT CAN GO BOTH WAYS.

THERE'S NO QUESTION, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF SHARED REVENUE THAT THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE RECEIVES, ABOUT $230 BILLION PER YEAR, THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE SET UP A STRUCTURE IN THIS STATE WHERE OUR GAME PLAN IS TO BE VERY RESTRICTIVE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN TERMS OF THE VARIETY OF TAXES THAT THEY CAN LEVY ON THEIR OWN IN RETURN FOR COMMITTING TO GIVE THEM APPROPRIATE STATE AIDS AND PROPERTY AUTHORITY TO ALLOW THEM TO PROVIDE CRITICAL LOCAL SERVICES, AND SO WHILE VOTERS OUTSIDE OF MILWAUKEE CAN LOOK AT THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY AND SAY BOY THAT'S A LOT AND WHY SHOULD WE ADD TO THAT, YOU CAN ALSO LOOK AT IT AS THAT THIS APPROPRIATION HAS NOT GROWN FOR 25 YEARS IN NOMINAL TERMS AND I THINK THE ENTIRE STATE WOULD SUFFER IF THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE TYPES OF CORE SERVICES ON WHICH NOT ONLY ITS RESIDENTS BUT ALSO THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE OF THE CITY AND THE COUNTY WHO VISIT MILWAUKEE ATTRACTIONS AND SO FORTH EVERY YEAR.

>> WITH ONLY ABOUT A HALF A MINUTE LEFT, HOW DIVERGENT DO YOU EXPECT THE TWO BUDGETS TO BE WHEN IT COMES TO BIG TICKET ITEMS LIKE K THROUGH 12 FUNDING?

>> YOU KNOW, K THROUGH 12 FUNDING IS A HUGE ISSUE IN TERMS OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNT.

I DO THINK, I'M DETECTING THAT THERE'S SOME FUNDAMENTAL AGREEMENT THAT MORE MONEY NEEDS TO BE AVAILABLE, PARTICULARLY FOR SPECIAL ED.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THEY'LL MEET IN THE MIDDLE OR, AS YOU SAY, IT WILL REMAIN DIVERGEENT AND THIS WILL BE ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT POTENTIALLY DRAGS DOWN EVERYTHING AND DELAYS THE ADOPTION OF A BUDGET.

>> ALL RIGHT.

WELL, ROB HENKEN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR EXPERTISE.

APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> THE ANNUAL DAY OF IMMIGRANT WORKERS RIGHTS ON MAY 1st SAW DEMONSTRATIONS IN MADISON AND MILWAUKEE THIS WEEK.

AMONG ITS GOALS, ADVOCATING FOR DRIVER'S LICENSES FOR IMMIGRANTS.

MEANWHILE, THE REPUBLICAN LED BUDGET COMMITTEE THIS WEEK AXED 545 ITEMS FROM THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET, INCLUDING DRIVER'S LICENSES FOR ALL.

THERE'S AN ESTIMATED 5,000 MIGRANT WORKERS ARRIVING IN WISCONSIN ANNUALLY TO WORK FARMING OR FOOD PROCESSING JOBS.

FOR MORE, WE TURN TOP TONY GONZALEZ, DIRECTOR OF THE AMERICAN HISPANIC ASSOCIATION OF MARATHON COUNTY, AND THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME ON YOUR PROGRAM.

>> SO WHY ARE DRIVER'S LICENSES SO IMPORTANT FOR THE IMMIGRANT WORKER POPULATION?

>> WELL, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT EVEN THROUGH THIS PANDEMIC THEY'VE JUST EXPERIENCED, IT WAS THOSE IMMIGRANT WORKERS OUT IN THE FIELDS PUTTING THE FOOD ON AMERICA'S TABLE, AND, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT IMMIGRANTS, THE REALITY IS THAT THEY'RE WORKING, THAT BUSINESSES ARE HIRING THEM AND NEEDING THEIR LABOR AND OTHERWISE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE A LOT OF PRODUCTION, AND PARTICULARLY HERE IN NORTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, WHERE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS NON-EXISTENT, JUST ABOUT, VERY LIMITED, AND THE DISTANCES ARE SO GREAT.

SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THEY GET THEIR IN A SAFE WAY AND ALSO YOU DON'T WANT -- YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT A LOT OF THOSE IMMIGRANTS' KIDS ARE AMERICAN-BORN KIDS, THEY GO TO SCHOOLS, THEY NEED TO GO TO THE HOSPITALS, THEY NEED TO ARRIVE THERE IN A SAFE WAY SO IT'S AN IMPORTANT THING THAT PEOPLE DO SO IN A SAFE WAY AND THAT WE KNOW THAT -- WE ALL WANT TO KNOW THAT THOSE THAT ARE SHARING THE ROADS BUT IT IS ARE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN TRAINED AND KNOW HOW TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE ROAD.

>> SOME CRITICS SAY THAT THIS COULD LEAD TO FRAUD OR ILLEGAL VOTING.

WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?

>> YOU KNOW, THAT IS A NARRATIVE THAT IS NOT TRUE.

NUMBER ONE, IF SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPENS, YOU HAVE TO BLAME THE PEOPLE AT THE VOTING POLLS BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE TO SHOW THEIR I.D.

AND THE OFFER HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE AREN'T GOING TO BE -- I.D.

CARDS THAT ARE VERY SPECIFICALLY GOING TO SAY NOT FOR VOTING, SO THEY'RE NOT REAL I.D.

COMPLIANT AS THEY HAVE TO BE, SO IT'S GOING TO BE VERY CLEARLY MARKED THAT THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO VOTE, AND I'VE GOT TO ADD SOMETHING TO THAT.

THE POPULATION ALSO HAS NO INTEREST IN DOING THAT.

THEIR INTEREST IS BEING ABLE TO GET ON THE ROAD SAFELY.

>> HOW IS THE TIDE TURNING ON THIS ISSUE, THOUGH, BETWEEN THE WORKER SHORTAGE AND THE PROMOTING PUBLIC SAFETY?

>> WELL, I THINK WE ARE VERY OPTIMISTIC THAT THINGS ARE CHANGING.

THE CONVERSATION HAS CHANGED TO BE MORE EDUCATIONAL, WHERE OUR LEGISLATORS UNDERSTAND THE NEED THAT BUSINESS OWNERS AND THE INDUSTRY NEEDS FOR THE WORKERS AND THAT SAFETY IS SOMETHING THAT IS INCREDIBLY BIG, NOT ONLY JUST ABOUT THE IMMIGRANT UNDOCUMENTED WORKER, BUT THE REST OF US THAT ARE ON THE ROAD.

IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT PEOPLE HAVE INSURANCE, THAT THEY KNOW HOW TO DRIVE AND THAT WE ARE SAFE ON THE ROADS.

>> YOU SAID ANOTHER TOP ISSUE IN YOUR AREA WITH NOT VERY MUCH TIME LEFT HERE TO TALK, IS MENTAL HEALTH.

WHAT'S THE SITUATION?

>> WELL, WE FIND OURSELVES IN A VERY HARD SITUATION BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS TO START WITH, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THERE'S NOT MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS THAT SPEAK THE LANGUAGE OR THAT HAVE THE CULTURAL KNOWLEDGE.

SO WE HAVE TO BRIDGE THAT GAP.

HOPEFULLY WITH MORE PROFESSIONALS THAT CAN DO THAT, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, THE USE OF PEOPLE THAT KNOW THE LANGUAGE, INTERPRETERS THAT CAN HELP BRIDGE THAT GAP IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE BECAUSE IT IS AN ISSUE WITH MANY OF OUR FARMERS, BEING A QUARTER OF AN INCH THEIR FAMILIES, -- BEING AWAY FROM THEIR FAMILIES, HAVING TO LIVE IN THE SHADOWS, AND DID ALSO GROWING IN THAT ENVIRONMENT IS A REALLY BIG BURDEN AND IT'S A BIG NEED HERE, MENTAL HEALTH, AND PROVIDERS TO HELP WITH THAT.

>> ALL RIGHT.

WELL, TONY GONZALEZ, THANKS VERY MUCH.

>> WELL, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME ON YOUR PROGRAM.

PLEASURE.

>> FOR MORE ON THIS AND OTHER ISSUES FACING WISCONSIN, VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT PBS WISCONSIN DOT-ORG, AND THEN CLICK ON THE NEWS TAB.

THAT'S OUR PROGRAM FOR TONIGHT.

I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.

HAVE GOOD WEEKEND.

(CLOSED CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY RIVERSIDE CAPTIONING) FUNDING FOR HERE AND NOW IS PROVIDED BY THE FOCUS FUND FOR JOURNALISM AND FRIENDS OF PBS WISCONSIN.