Here & Now; 635

You Welcome to here and now I'm Frederica Freiberg. Members of an assembly committee fired up a hearing this week on the proposed statewide smoking ban. Later tonight we'll visit with two bar owners with very different points of view on the ban. Throughout tonight's program we'll show you highlights from the annual state of the tribes address delivered at the state capital Tuesday. The Great Lakes compact is lost at sea for the moment.

Two state lawmakers are here to tackle that topic. But first, with all the hollow blue over the presidential primaries it's easy to forget that in just over four weeks Wisconsinites will elect a Supreme Court Justice. Election day is April 1st. Tonight we begin our formal coverage of the candidates for the high court. Coverage that will culminate in a live we the people candidate debate on Friday night March 28th. Tonight and next Friday night we want to introduce you to the candidates one at a time. Next week we will talk with Brunette County Circuit Court Judge Michael Gabelman. Tonight, incumbent Justice Lewis Butler is here, a former public defender and Milwaukee Municipal and Circuit Court Judge. Butler was appointed to the Supreme Court by Governor Doyle in 2004. Welcome to the program Lewis Butler. Well, thank you very much for having me. It's good to be here for Drika. Well, we wanted to ask you, over your four years now on the court, what have you learned? I tell you, it's such an honor to be serving as a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to be working with outstanding legal minds and trying to interpret and apply the law for the people of Wisconsin. I've really enjoyed the interaction that we've had with the lawyers. I've enjoyed the conference room debating that goes on when we sit down and meet and we decide cases.

We had oral arguments today and I rushed over here right after we sat through our tentative initial decision making process for the three cases that we heard. So it's just it's a fascinating experience. It's a wonderful opportunity to serve the people of Wisconsin. What are your highest held principles as a jurist? Well, I think most people care about how they're going to be viewed when they get into court. They want a court that is going to listen to what they have to say. They want a court that is going to understand their arguments and make decisions based upon their set of circumstances and the law. And so from my perspective, when I go to court in the court, I try to keep an open mind. I try to hear the party's arguments and I take very seriously my responsibility as a judge to uphold the Constitution and to apply the law and hold wrongdoers accountable. That's what I do every single day. What about your highest held principles as a person?

Well, I think the basic principles that all Wisconsinites have. I care about issues of family. I care about justice and fair play. I care about things that are right and wrong. I think things that most people care about. And I've been honored to have been selected by the people to serve them in a capacity that allows me to do the very things that I left to do on a day-to-day basis. Critics, and I must say these are Republicans, mostly like former Lieutenant Governor Margaret Farrow, suggest that you are an activist judge. They say that you use your own judgment on the court, on the bench, over precedent that you act like a legislator. Judge Gabelman's campaign says you legislate from the bench. What do you say to these charges, I guess, of being an activist judge? Well, activist judge is a pejorative that's generally thrown out by somebody that doesn't like the result of the decision. That's where the term comes from. And I encourage people, when those terms are thrown around, to actually sit down and look at the cases that we decide because I take very seriously our approach to the law in the state of Wisconsin.

I look very carefully at every single case that the parties cite when they bring an argument to the court. I look very seriously at every case that's cited within the cases that are cited by the parties. I look very seriously at the cases that are cited within the cases, that are cited within the cases, that are cited within the cases, that the parties cite. And the purpose of that is to get to the root of the rule so that when we're making decisions on a day-to-day basis, Because we don't cause problems that the court has already solved over time. So when people come out and they throw around these terms that, you know, activist judges because they don't like a particular result, I often encourage people, pen them down, ask them what it is about the decision that they disagree with. Do they have a problem with the rationale or the reasoning? We have a court with, as I've said many times, seven outstanding minds we don't always agree.

We approach the law very carefully and we try to approach issues of justice very carefully. And I think it's not fair to the court or to the people of Wisconsin for people to attack, and I'm the candidate, so I expect to get attacked, but to attack the Wisconsin Supreme Court and suggest that we have an activist court when the top legal minds of the state are sitting there and trying to decide the disputes that people bring to them on a daily basis. This makes no sense. Here's some more criticism since you are running. There are also suggestions that because of your work as a public defender that you are soft on crime. And in fact, there was a fundraising letter put out again by Margaret Farrow suggesting that you voted to release a sex predator into Milwaukee first. What about that? And second, what about this idea that you are soft on crime? All right. First of all, with respect to releasing a sex predator, the court did know such thing. It's a ridiculous allegation that has been shown time and again to be just plain false. Anyone who will go back and look at the case will find that what the court did was not release

anybody. We applied the law to a particular set of facts. The individual has never, ever been released to the streets, been in custody, nonstop, since his incarceration. He's still at San Ridge. And all the court ordered was that in a situation where the department has not produced evidence of current dangerousness for a person who's already finished serving their sentence, that under the statutes, under the law, they have an obligation to provide a plan for a supervised release to submit the plan. No one has ever been ordered released by our court in that aspect. And it's just the information in the case is just plain wrong. Soft on crime? The soft on crime. I mean, I sit there and I laugh at that. I come from a law enforcement family. I have a brother who's a police officer who has actually been shot in a line of duty. And when I think in terms of soft on crime, those, and particularly from the standpoint that I'm a former public defender, like our current Attorney General, J.B. Van Halen, is a former public defender, that has nothing to do with the job that I'm holding now.

I've been a judge for almost 16 years. I've hold all wrongdoers and half hell all wrongdoers accountable. But that means also applying the rules of law to an individual set of facts in case. And if someone doesn't like a resultant people, can they always have a right to disagree with anything that the court does? It's one thing to say I disagree with a decision here or a decision there. But we've also upheld, my vote's on the court, of upheld decisions involving criminal cases when you factor in all the cases, 97% of the time. That's soft. There was a lot of money that poured into this race the last time around nearly $6 million from the candidates themselves and from third party groups. How can justices on that bend remain impartial when there is this kind of money and influence? So the justices will remain impartial. The question is how will the justices be elected in future races given the influx of outside dollars into judicial races in our state? Which is unheard of until last year and in our state. We haven't seen anything like this before.

We have all seven justices on the Supreme Court have signed a letter suggesting without endorsing or supporting any particular bill that campaign finance reform is something that we hope the legislature will look at. In terms of trying to get some control over the outside money that comes in. But we have to be very careful in our state to send a message very loud and very clear that justice is not for sale. Justice Butler, we need to leave it there. Thanks very much. Thank you very much for having me. It's been in pleasure. Next week we talk to the challenger in this race. Burnett County Circuit Judge Michael Gabelman. Gabelman and Butler will appear together on March 28th on our special We the People Supreme Court Forum. Throughout tonight's program, we bring you highlights from the annual State of the Tribes Address, which took place Tuesday at the State Capitol. Cooperation between Wisconsin's 11 Indian Tribes and State Government was the message this year in the speech given by Robert Chicks, president of the Stockbridge Muncie Band of Mohican Indians, and president of the Great Lakes Intertribal Council. He asked state lawmakers to pass a joint resolution to acknowledge a legitimate relationship between Indian governments and the state legislature. If we hear today stand before one another and pledge cooperation, consultation, and communication, then surely the cornerstone of that relationship lies in a joint resolution that embodies that spirit.

It is difficult to imagine how we can go forward and create a stronger relationship and be more effective in our obligation to our citizens until those principles are articulated in this legislative expression of intent. Mr. President and Mr. Speaker, we ask that you bring a joint resolution to your respective floors this week and put into writing what we speak about so often by partisan acknowledgement of the tribes, the sovereign tribes in the state of Wisconsin. This is something meaningful and not just symbolic. It occurs no cost creates no new law nor confers no new rights, but it does demonstrate clear acknowledgement of a legitimate government government relationship between Wisconsin's legislative body and the governments of the 11 sovereign tribes residing here in Wisconsin. Now to a story we've been covering this winter, the status of the Great Lakes Compact, the compact is an agreement among eight states on how water is allowed to be diverted out of the Great Lakes.

Governors from all eight states signed the compact in 2005, yet it awaits approval in the Wisconsin legislature. Some state lawmakers are more than ready to pass the path, people like Racine Democrat Representative Cory Mason. Others like State Senator Mary Lazick, a Republican from New Berlin, says a few changes are needed before passage. Welcome to both of you. Thank you. First to you Representative Mason, why do you think we need this compact right now? The reason we need the compact is just to update the protections that the lake has for water diversions, the lakes at an all time low in terms of water levels. And the thing about the Great Lakes is they don't sort of recognize state boundaries or international boundaries. It's a connected ecosystem where one lake directly impacts the other lake. So the only way we can really adequately protect it is if all eight of the Great Lakes states come together on an agreement that we can all buy into.

Senator Lazick, you think that we ought to look at some of the language in this compact and go a little slow. Yes, this compact will be with us for a long time to come. And we all agree that it's important to manage the Great Lakes resources. And it's important to have a compact and work with the other states to protect the Great Lakes. However, the compact is 45 pages in length. And since I've been in the legislature, I haven't seen a document that has as broad a language as this document. There are a lot of concerns about that broad language and a lot of concerns about lack of definition, which we try to live with and accept some of that. But if we boil it down and look at the issue of the one state veto, that's very problematic. And I think a little tweaking, I think a little tweaking is an order. Describe this for me if you would. The one state veto. This means that if someone, for example, Walker Shaw County needed some water from Lake Michigan, another state not Wisconsin could under the language of this compact state. No, we don't like you taking that water from Lake Michigan. So no, is that what you're talking about?

That's correct, Frederica. Any governor of the eight Great Lakes states could veto a decision by the state of Wisconsin. And that's very contrary to, you know, dictatorial government is not something we have in this country. So for a governor from another state to be able to veto the wishes of a state is it just isn't in the best interest of Wisconsin. What represent Mason, what about that? Well, what I would say that is that's literally been the law since 1986. There's federal law called word of the Wisconsin or the Water Resource Diversion Act that requires currently that for there to be any diversion, all eight states have to buy in. And in fact, right now, Michigan or Indiana or any other states could object to Walker Shaw getting water. Simply because Walker Shaw starts with a W. I mean, they don't have to give any reason whatsoever. What the compact does is it creates a standard and a procedure and benchmarks that a community like Walker Shaw that's applying for an exception from the van diversions has to meet. And if they do, that's the standard that the other governors have to use. It's no longer arbitrary.

And it gives a community like Walker Shaw an opportunity at getting an exception from the van. So because Senator Walker Shaw needs water and it needs water from Lake Michigan because it's got problems with its wells. Why not just go ahead and have Walker Shaw drill some new wells instead of holding up the Great Lakes compact over it? Well, the problem for Walker Shaw and some other communities as radium is in the deep wells that they use for their municipal wells. Between a literally a rock and a hard boys in trying to get drinking water for public health to supply their communities. So they, you know, an issue is tapping into Lake Michigan. And as we've seen in the past, particularly the governor of Michigan, it's almost an electoral mandate for them to veto any request by another state. And importantly too, as Representative Mason says under Worda, they could veto it now.

But because Worda has a fatal flaw, it doesn't mean that these governors should have put this document together with a fatal flaw allowing one governor from some other state to veto water for somewhere in the state of Wisconsin. What's the likelihood of this compact being reworded to fit the needs of Senator Lasek and others who don't like it? Council of Great Lakes governors came out shortly after Representative Gunnerson and Representative Hipsch put out their letter asking for it to be reworked and said, you know, we're not going to go back and renegotiate this. There's three states that have already signed into law, two more that have passed it through both houses of their legislature. You know, we're five, six, seven years into this process. To renegotiate it would be more than I think the governors of both parties are willing to do. But we're also running out of time. I mean, I think people don't realize there's now border disputes between Georgia and Tennessee about water rights. You know, part of the reason the one state veto I think makes sense is, you know, if Ohio or Indiana suddenly wanted to build a pipeline to Tennessee or Georgia, I like the idea that our Wisconsin governor could say, you know what?

Lake Michigan levels are really low. Let's say no. So how real is it that people want to divert our Great Lakes water in that way? Well, I think as water tension becomes more and more real, what once seemed expensive and unrealistic is going to seem more and more palatable to it, not just the Southwest, but the Southeast. So what about that? What do you think about, you know, maintaining and protecting the water of our Great Lakes that border our state? Well, it is important to protect them, but we also have to look at the needs within our state of Wisconsin, the needs of the Waukeshaz, the needs of our economic base. You know, Wisconsin has a lot at stake in this. Wisconsin and Ohio rely on the Great Lakes. Michigan is probably never going to have to ask for diversion. Illinois is never going to ask for it. They have a huge protectionist diversion that they can divert outside of, out into the Mississippi. Minnesota has such a little at stake. Wisconsin needs to be very mindful.

And this is a 45-page document with a lot of broad language. Our own legislative council attorneys issued a 10-page single-space memo listing concerns about broad language and what doesn't mean. So we have, we those, those that want to slow it down, take a little bit of time, get this right. You know, we swallow a lot and try to accept a lot on faith. But we are giving these governors an incredible amount of power in the compact to make some changes to the standards and reviews after. And if they tell us they're not going to come back to the table, it really gives me pause to empower them with this compact to make even more decisions for us when they want to thumb their nose at us and say, nah, we're not coming back. All right, table. Guess what, we need to leave it on the table here with this discussion. So Senator, thank you very much and representative, thank you. Thanks for having me. The leaders of Wisconsin's Indian tribes are also concerned about the fate of the Great Lakes compact. We bring you more now from this week's state of the tribes address. On the United States side of the border, 35 tribes share in the lands of the Great Lakes basin.

For us, the Great Lakes are more than a water source, a commerce route, or a recreational resource. The Great Lakes are our family, our history, our culture, and our life source. As you move forward in consideration of the Great Lakes compact, we urge you to remember that tribes, the tribes of Wisconsin are also governmental stakeholders recognized in Article 5 of the compact. Our government to government relationship with the state of Wisconsin, as well as with the federal government, demands a seat at the table for each tribe where our life and livelihood are concerned. We are concerned that tribal consultation is linked together with public participation, which may limit the role that tribes play in the process. Shortly, the individual tribes and the Great Lakes Center tribal council will deliver to the speaker's office a list of consultation issues that will more completely address this very important component of the bill. We must all remember that might as they may seem, the Great Lakes and life in the Great Lakes basin are still a fragile balance.

People fired up on both sides of the proposed statewide smoking ban gathered at the Capitol Wednesday. That's where an assembly committee took testimony on the proposal. The sticking point in Wisconsin as in other states that have considered a state ban is what to do about smoking in bars. That's where the smoking debate gets the most heated, and that's why we decided to ask two tavern owners to join us tonight. They are Keith Daniels, who owns the Harmony Bar in Madison. He supports the Madison ban and the idea of a state one. David Wigginowski owns Wiggy's Bar and Grill also in Madison. He says smoking bans are bad for business. Well, thanks to both of you for taking some time out of the bar business to join us here. Appreciate it. Now, first to you, David Wigginowski, what has Madison smoking ban done to your business? He crippled it when it took off. I went into effect. It took 47% of my business right off the top.

We've laid off five employees, took a sizeable cut in our gross wages. The wife and I went back to work in seven days a week to 12, 14 hour shifts like we had been originally. And what did customers say they said we just don't want to come here because we don't want to drink if we can't smoke? My bar is pretty much blue collar union workers, a lot of democratic ones. The construction worker comes in and wants a shot and to be here and have a cigarette for the lunch hour. They have a cigarette with it. We took a little poll when they gave us a little time because the city came up with us. Well, we'll give you a little time to prepare for it, which to me didn't really help too much. We told a lot of people it was coming. We took surveys around 87% of my customers were smokers. And so have you set up spaces outside or here? We've got a little smoking areas where they can go on a heated area. We've came back a little bit. We're still considerably down. We've had some price increases to change it. We've changed some of our personnel around. We've changed some of our policies around to try to accommodate some of it. But the daytime business is really the one that's been crippled the worst. Becky Daniels, you like this band. I love it. How come?

It's a healthier environment to work in. Even some of the bartenders that do smoke who are against it right away. Now they love it. They find themselves smoking less. As far as hurting the business by it went into effect in July. Now July was down about 15%. My August was down about 15%. By September, I was back to where I was and by October, I was busier than I'd ever been before. So do you think it actually brought in a new brand of customer kind of an even more? A lot of people, a lot of people came in and said we're here because we stop going to bars because of the smoke. We couldn't take the smoke anymore. And we're here because we know you support the smoking band. It was one thing. Which gained me quite a few new customers, of course. And as far as losing customers, we also had a hardcore element. We also had a blue collar bar. And we had a hardcore element of guys who smoke. And if I lost 10 customers over smoking, I gained 100. Well, what about that? I mean, is there any way to kind of grow a new client out?

I mean, there's different areas. Obviously, the key spars are different areas of mine. And if you look in my area, you can see about 13 bars that were shut down. They were prominent good running bars on the north side. The buck I would that was always packed. It's been a traumatic thing. I've heard all these people say, well, I'm going to go to your bar now. That's smoke free. I haven't seen them. My impression is they must still be in detox that they haven't got out. I've had two people come in that told me that they liked it since it's been smoke free. The one lady said, it's so wonderful. And I said, well, how was it before? She said, I don't know. I was never in here before. So the talk was a lot about it. I'm right behind Oscar Myers. I get a lot of union employees. I get the blue collar much like Keith does. But I'm right behind the production place. And you can drive four directions to my place where they can smoke. Well, no, what about a statewide ban, though? Wouldn't that level the playing field so that you weren't competing with somebody maybe in the town of Burke or something where smoking isn't? Well, that's the problem in an argument that's going on. I won't disagree that it might, well, I make up what I've lost. No, well, those customers come back probably not. I can work on something new. Why would they come back? Why would they come back? They found a new home, takes 28 days to set a habit of the man's used to going to Manona.

And he lives in Manona. He's probably not going to come back because he can't smoke. He can't smoke. There's a potential that he might come back. I'm not saying they're going to run and do it. I'm thinking that I'm going to have to build off the new trade again for the people that are coming up like I'm working on now. Yeah, and I don't agree with that argument. Yeah, and see, I do. See, you've got a business that's a little different. And like I said, we've always disagreed on this quite a bit. I'm hoping someone will come back, but would I want to wish this devastation anybody else? No. And it's for Keith, he thinks it's wonderful. I don't know why he didn't go smoke-free before the ban was put on. And now I wish I had of. And actually, sometimes I think if they would revert it, my business would go up even more because I would say it's 2020. Obviously. The thing about it is though. Now, you say that you love it because it feels healthier and you like being able to. I thought it's out of doubt. Well, it's proven. I mean, bottom line, smoking kills. And eventually it's going to be banned everywhere. There's no doubt about that. Well, what about nations are doing? There wasn't the smoking ban that's smoking kills. I won't debate that issue. The question was the second hand smoke. Right. The kills are not. And there's a lot of debate on both sides of the aisle, but Madison is liberal as the iron. It won't seem to want to put the one story out. They do it. Well, do you believe the second hand smoke is harmful? No, I do not.

And I absolutely say it is. I'm saying it's probably not good for you, but it's the harmful it's saying it is. I think a lot depends on the ventilation system and the air quality that you have in your businesses that make it up. And I absolutely believe it's harmful. And I think that the proof is overwhelming. Well, the studies are overwhelming. And so what would you. Any medical person would tell you it's harmful. They do. What do you think about taking the ban statewide? I think it's it's going to happen. It's just a question of time. It's an undeniable that it's going to happen. It's going to happen to state by state. I don't think so. I think they'd had the vote have been statewide already. The governor has pushed it. He's tried to do it. He's told Senator Breskey and Senator Risser to get together and talk about it. Breskey says that you're going to be an exemption for the taverns. Risser says there's not. They haven't got together. Decker doesn't seem to want to schedule unless you get to the country. Well, it's kind of interesting because all the while Fred Risser says we're negotiating. There's not a problem here. Nothing's getting done. So the bars don't have smoking bans are very happy as long as they do nothing. Keith, what do you think about the state of Wisconsin potentially being the last state in Wisconsin?

I think it won't be the last one. I don't that's just absurd to me. I think it'll happen within the next year. I would think the state will be smoke free. Well, that's the argument they come up. They talk about all these states that are smoke free. But they're not telling you most of them that are smoke free are all smoking in taverns and so on. Now, I know that the tavern league has agreed to a compromise that would allow taverns to wait until 2011 to do this. That was wonderful. What would that make? I don't think you can prepare for it. I mean, it's the talking how you use yourself. What are you going to sell your ass trees? I mean, what do we have probably? Six months, nine months when they gave a dust to prepare for it. We gave a remaining ass trees to all my favorite smokers. That was a nice parting gift. I figured I'd put mine on eBay for the states that allow their bars to smoke. So that's a question. But to talk about smoking, if it's so bad, Madison then allows cigars bars. You can smoke a cigar, which can't smoke a cigarette, which is a little hypocritical, I guess, when they talk about that, because in my place, when you used to smoke a cigar, the cigarette smokers were higher. Yeah, I bet. So if it's really about health, why did our city council say you can have a cigar bar?

Meanwhile, Lance Armstrong is coming to town next week to talk about this. We need to leave it there, but we really appreciate both of you coming in. My pleasure. You're welcome. More now from Tuesday's annual State of the Tribes Address, securing better health care remains a big concern for Wisconsin's Indian communities. Health care is one of our greatest challenges that we tribal leaders are confronted with. Like you, we appreciate what the rising cost of health care means to our citizens. Indian country is among the least served and the least funded when it comes to health care. What's more, hearing the great, great lake states, the tribes have the highest incident of catastrophic illnesses, such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes. In the volatile 12 federal regions, we are the least funded. On average, each American receives the equivalent of about $6,000 in health care treatment annually. By comparison, each tribal member in our region receives only the approximate of $900 annually.

This gap is extremely wide and continues to grow each year. Earlier tonight, we began our coverage of the April 1 Supreme Court election. Incumbent Justice Lewis Butler was here. Next Friday, we'll have a one-on-one conversation with Butler's opponent in the race. Burnett County Circuit Court Judge Michael Gabelman. That's next Friday night, I'm hearing now. Then on March 28th, join the candidates and a citizen panel for a live debate between the candidates. The hour-long We The People Supreme Court candidate forum is Friday night, March 28th at 7. If you'd like to be a member of the studio audience for the forum, drop us a line using our news and public affairs email address. That's NPA at WPT.org. That's all for tonight's program. I'm Frederica Freiberg. Have a great weekend. Thank you very much.