Speaker 1: And we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, senior Elections correspondent at the
Federalist and your experienced Shirpa on today's quest for Knowledge.
As always, you can email the show at radio at
the Federalist dot com, follow us on x at FDR LST,
make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and
of course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is Mike Valante, director of the Center
for Election Integrity at the America First Policy Institute and
organization that is well, it's a busy organization to say
the very least, and it has to be because election
intake is so very critical, as we found out in
this most recent presidential election.
Speaker 2: For sure.
Speaker 1: Today we turn our attention to what the Wall Street
Journal has dubbed the most important election of twoenty twenty five. Mike,
thank you so much for joining usby you bet absolutely.
Let's read a little bit from the Wall Street Journal
and we'll start there and talk about your efforts, the
Center's efforts in making sure that this election that we
mention is indeed secure and it is transparent, and it
is within the law, because we can't always say that,
of course, with our elections. The Wall Street Journal recently wrote,
could the election of a single state Supreme Court justice
redraw a state congressional delegation up and the balance of
the US House block? Donald Trump, Welcome to Wisconsin, twenty
twenty five's election of the year. It's right. The Wisconsin
State Supreme Court election coming up on April first will
ultimately decide first and foremost whether that court is controlled
by liberals or conservatives, And as we have reported at
The Federalist extensively in recent weeks, it also could decide
the fate of the House. Mike, let's begin there. You
have been obviously extremely active in Wisconsin. How important is
this race? I don't think a lot of people have
been following it, and it is something that has a
significant impacts surrounding it.
Speaker 3: It's a huge impact that can have an impact on
the state of Wisconsin directly for a generation, and certainly
on what's happening around the country.
Speaker 2: It's kind of funny.
Speaker 3: In a previous life, I had done some work nationally
for a tort reform organization, and one of the key
races always was the Wisconsin Supreme Court because for the
longest time, those that like to gain the system, the
ambulance chasing attorneys used to use the Wisconsin Court and
it always was so important to make sure it did
not fall into the wrong hands. And you fast forward,
you know, almost a decade later, and you see it's
still on the forefront on.
Speaker 2: The national level of importance. So the Wall Street Journal
hit it on the button.
Speaker 3: There's a governor's race in New Jersey, governor's race in Virginia,
legislative races in both states as well as I think
in Kentucky. Probably as it relates to the future. For
Wisconsin certainly and for the country, I think the Supreme
Court race in Wisconsin cannot be undersold.
Speaker 1: Certainly the money shows you as much, doesn't it. And
the people who are engaged nationally in this race twenty
twenty three, I'll take us back there. I remember covering
that race extensively for the news organization as working for
at the time for the Federalists. But that was the
most expensive judicial stage judicial race in the history of
this country, and at about fifty plus million dollars of spending,
and ultimately the Left won that contest and changed control
of that Court to a liberal majority for the first
time in fifteen years. That has had a massive impact
thus far that we'll talk about as we proceed. But
this race April first, twenty twenty five, which again has
the ability to know it has something to say about
the control of the court, is on pace to be
the most expensive judicial race in US history. Why is that, Mike, I.
Speaker 3: Think because I think people understand both in and out
of state, how important this race is, what a bell
weather is, and also how much it can affect one
of the most important and swing states that we have
in the country. You know, we have half a dozen
swing states you know that affect presidential elections, and obviously
Wisconsin is at the top of the list, along with Pennsylvania.
The other part I think that impacts people as they
look at it is redistricting.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: Obviously in Wisconsin they did state legislative redistricting. Next up
is the congressional redistricting.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: My understanding is the Democrat candidate there was on a
phone call that was raising money to change you know,
at least two of the congressional districts there to flip them,
which could cause you know, obviously with the slim majority
Republicans have in the House could cause the House to flip,
which would certainly put a a roadblock. Or I don't
think there's any such thing as a roadblock for President Trump.
Speaker 2: He just plows through everything. So maybe a bump in the.
Speaker 3: Road is probably a better way of putting it, so
that you know there's that possibility as well, so that
I think everybody recognizes. It's not only the volume of money.
It's like who's putting the money in on both sides.
I mean you see you know, Elon Musk and others
on the Republicans. On the conservative side, you see certainly
Planned Parenthood, the Democratic National Committee, the Labor Union's George Soros.
On the other side, the traditional ones that you would
expect to see.
Speaker 2: I think the.
Speaker 3: Difference though, is while in reading and watching it, while
the Liberals are, you know, claiming foul because Elon's organization
has put money into it, what's actually happened is it's
been a level of a playing field. Before it would
be one sided with the outside money coming in. Now
it's not. It's more competitive. So I think that's one
of the things you look at, is not just the
volume of money, but where it's coming from.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, it's interesting two points on that. You know,
it reminds me of what happened in around twenty twenty
two when Elon Musk took over Twitter brought a level
playing field to the you know, to the marketplace of
ideas in social media in this country at least began
the process of balancing it. That's what is happening with
Elon Musk involved in this race. The other part of
all of this is, look at all of the left
wing money from you know, the from the billionaire elitist
left class, the socialist George Soros, Governor J. B. Pritzker
in Illinois, Reid Hoffman, and you go down the campaign
finance list and you see these massive contributions. The left
wants something for its money, does it not.
Speaker 3: They want you know, they say they want a pound
of people say they want their pound of flesh. They
want a pound and a half. There's a lot about it, man,
you know. They It's kind of interesting to me because
obviously abortion is a big issue in this race, but
there's also a bunch of other issues. There's the issue
of the will of the people, you know, the people
deciding at the ballot box in terms of referendum what
they want in their state. And you know, I've lived
in California for twenty five years and finally made the
great escape out of there.
Speaker 1: I was going to say my condolences, Yeah, Noel, but
you but you made it so God bless you.
Speaker 3: Yes, I think free to Last comes in handy here.
But what's happened there is you see, referendum will go
to the ballot and you'll see people vote, and they'll
vote a certain way, and then all of a sudden,
you know, a I wouldn't even call it a conservative
way in California, I would call it a common sense way.
And all of a sudden, you know, the left doesn't
get what they want.
Speaker 2: So what do they do.
Speaker 3: They go to the heavily biased leftist, progressive and activists
Supreme Court in California and they get them to overturn
the will of the people. And I think that's one
of the fears that folks in Wisconsin should have, is
with an activist court like that, you know, despite what
you may want. And I'll use election integrity as a
perfect example. On the ballot on April first, Besides the
Supreme Court race is the ballot initiative for photo ID.
Now one candidate has called photo ID a poll tax
and she and I won't say who it is, but
she has also called it draconian.
Speaker 1: I'll say who it is, Mike, because I think our
listeners want to know who these people are, that you
know where the focal point of attention is, and that is,
of course, Susan Crawford, a Dane County judge. And for
those who don't know Wisconsin political geography, Dane County maybe
one of the is I believe, one of the top
five liberal counties, the most far left county that you
will find in America. Just as you talked about leftists
taking their arguments to the California Supreme Court, that's exactly
what the left has done for a long time here.
They know they're going to get a victory from their
ideological point of view in Dane County. Susan Crawford has
represented that ideological point of view in Dane County for
several years. She is opposed. Her opponent is Brad Shimmel,
Waukeshaw County judge. And again, for those looking at the
geo political map in Wisconsin, Waukeshaw has historically been, although
it's changing somewhat, one of the most conservative regions in
the state and perhaps the country.
Speaker 3: I agree with you, Matt, I mean I would call
Dame County. I would call for perspective for people that
are listening from outside of Wisconsin, it's probably, if not more,
but as progressive as San Francisco, except it has probably
better cheese than San Francisco has.
Speaker 1: It does and much colder weather, at least in the winter.
Speaker 3: Yes, so you're absolutely right, But you know what you
have here is and it gets to the point I
think of how it impacts people.
Speaker 2: You could have a situation.
Speaker 3: On April first where this ballot initiative, which you know
would require photo ID to vote, which America First policy
was very involved with the legislature of encouraging and educating
to try and make sure that got on the ballot.
You could have a situation where people vote for that,
which I think they will because it is an issue
that over seventy five to eighty percent of the voters
around the country support. Yes, because it's common sense. I mean,
if you have to have an ID, a photo ID
to get on a plane, to buy a bottle of
liquor in some places to buy cosmetics. It makes sense
to be able and have to do that. But on
the flip side, if you elect someone that is going
to have an activist court mentality, then the will of
the people could easily be overturned quickly. So that's the
thing that folks have to understand is that, yes, there's
all these national folks that are weighing in on it,
but you know, one of the keys here is will
the will of the people be able to be sustained
and will laws that are passed constitutionally by the Wisconsin
legislature be upheld? And those are two huge issues that
folks in Wisconsin need to understand that that's why this election.
Speaker 2: Is so important.
Speaker 4: New York State has a new recruitment process for Democrat voters.
Speaker 5: The watch Dout on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski.
Every day, Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and
the economy and how it affects your wallet.
Speaker 4: After DOJ's purge of the federal workforce, Governor Kathy Hogel
is recruiting federal workers to move to New York. Does
she really want employment or just more votes?
Speaker 5: Whether it's happening in DC or down on Wall Street.
It's affecting you financially.
Speaker 2: Be informed.
Speaker 5: Check out the Watch on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, Mike, and you know, there's much that we can learn,
as always by the company that people keep that doesn't
necessarily always say that a judge in this case will
vote this way or that way basically because they have
an endorsement here or there. But when you see the
leftist mob, the amount of endorsements from the likes of
Planned Parenthood and the socialist anti Trump Indivisible, for instance,
when you see endorsements for a candidate from leftist judges
that actively support it. And I bring this up because
of the timing, it's hard to believe, but this is
you know, we're looking at this week as the fifth year,
fifth anniversary of when the lockdowns truly began to take
form in this country. Wisconsin's Supreme Court played a critical
role in adjudicating those health policies. Some of Susan Crawford's
dearest leftist friends were involved in the continuation of those lockdowns.
That's I think a policy matter that Wisconsin voters will
remember when they had the polls in the coming weeks.
How do you feel about that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, it's interesting.
Speaker 3: You're right, was almost to the day five years ago
when when the world changed.
Speaker 2: And and the you.
Speaker 3: Know, the borders were sealed and and you know, people
were sent home, and ironically enough, you know, people you know,
just started living a completely different life. And in each
state it was a little bit different. Uh. And I
think and certainly people do remember that because you know,
that's a life changing event. And yes, the courts played
the state courts played a huge role in what you know,
initially was a health thing. And then you know, you
saw other states like Florida and Texas and other states
you know, come out of it and you know, start
to be able to stand on their own two feet
and decide what they wanted to do and had their
court systems back them up and doing that. But in
other places you had the courts that were overruling with
elected officials wanted to do. And so yeah, I think
people will remember that it was such a you know,
an important event in our history. But you know the
other thing too, I look at you mentioned endorsements, and
I'll just put my political hat on of thirty plus
years when you have a candidate, because I noticed one
of the things is that Susan Crawfortt has refused to
say whether you know, how she's voting on that ballot
initiative to require a photo I D. She said, you know,
She's like, well, I'm not going to you know, I'm
not going to say how I'm voting on that. And
so again you just use the common sense thing. Someone
that calls voter I D draconian and a poll tax
but won't say.
Speaker 2: How she's going to vote on the issue.
Speaker 3: That should that right, there should be a red flag
and vote any voter's mind because you know how they're
going to vote, why don't they just say it? And
that should be the kind of thing that folks get
and say, you know, is this going to be someone
that's actually going to, you know, deal fairly on the
court and take a look at each thing, you know,
on its merits or is it going to be skewed
to a particular philosophy or a particular belief system. And
you're right, those that endorse, those that put money in
will is a good indication. But what they say and
what they don't say is also a great indication as well.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, and take a look at their actions. I mean,
they can say a lot of different things, but their
actions speak volumes. And we know that Susan Crawford as
an attorney, as a prosecutor, as someone who worked in
the former a long time ago Democrat Governor Jim Doyle's
administration back in the early part of this century, you know,
her actions do speak volumes, including in her battles against
what has been a very successful public sector union reform
measure that was signed by Governor Scott Walker, a Republican,
back in twenty eleven. That was the Act ten law,
if you remember, that created all kinds of havoc from
the public sector unions, organized labor descended on Madison at
the state capitol. There were a massive protest over this
whole thing. There were court challenges, and Susan Crawford was
involved in a Madison law firm to try to kill
Act ten, which has saved Wisconsin taxpayers billions upon billions
of dollars. That's an issue that will come before this
court ultimately as well. So much at stake in this election.
Speaker 2: Very much so, and.
Speaker 3: It does hit close to home because it's it impacts
your everyday life.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: One of the things that strikes me is and I
have family that live in Wisconsin. I've got a ton
of friends that live in Wisconsin. You know, there's conservative,
there's liberal, and then there's just out what I call
out there, which is where California has become. But you know,
a governor like you have in Wisconsin that calls mothers
inseminated persons. You know, those kinds of things are the
kinds of things that should send a warning message whether
you're you know, slightly left, slightly right, whatever that you know,
And I think that's what people in twenty twenty four
responded against. Those kinds of extreme things, those kind of
extreme characterizations, those kind of extreme measures. I think they
revolted against that in twenty twenty four, which is why
you saw President Trump do so well in places they
didn't think he was going to do well with or
with groups and constituencies folks didn't think he was going
to do well with. He did, you know, amazingly well
with is because people look and say, let's just have
a touch of common sense here. And you know, so
in May is wisconsinly going to celebrate inseminated person's Day
or are they going to celebrate Mother's Day?
Speaker 2: And you know, as stupid as it may.
Speaker 3: Sound to people and ridiculous, this is stuff that an
activist court can weigh in on and you know, have
an impact on. And so it's everything from as you said,
the economy and the working folks, it's everything from from
our standpoint, especially election integrity. All of that is on
the line on April first, And I think that's one
of the reasons. I guess what I'm saying is I
hope that the voters of Wisconsin are as aware and
energized about this race and what it has for the
future of Wisconsin as people outside of Wisconsin are, because
it is that critical of a race for the folks
that live there, pay taxes there, work there, and race
families there.
Speaker 1: Our guest today is Mike Lanti, director of the Center
for Election Integrity at the America First Policy Institute. We're
talking today about what the Wall Street Journal has dubbed
the most important election of twenty twenty five. That is
April first election of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, an election
that will determine whether the left or the right controls
that Court for some time, and ultimately that court could
decide on who controls the House. Will delve a little
bit more into that coming up in just a bit.
But back to what you mentioned about Wisconsin far left
Governor Tony Evers, who certainly has a shares political ideology.
I think with Susan Crawford, based on her record and
based on the people who endorse her. That situation you
talked about with Governor Tony Evers putting in a budget
bill language that would change the word mother to inseminated person.
How much do you think those kinds of things. There's
another incident we wrote about the Federalist this week where
the drag queens are coming out in full force for
a fundraiser for Susan Crawford. We had the Bernie Sanders
Abortion on Demand rally in Kenosha a while back, where
you had a punk rock transgender punk rocker singing the
most profane and hideously offensive songs about Christianity. These cultural
issues played a big part in the presidential election of
November twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2: How much of.
Speaker 1: Those cultural issues, how much do you think those cultural
issues will play a part in Wisconsin's Supreme Court race?
Speaker 3: I think they do play a part. I think, you know,
people pay attention and they see that. The key is
for someone to make the connection that what you're seeing
here is not something. You know, you may look at
it and say, oh, that's a spectacle or you know, yeah,
that's you know, one day, one night, whatever. What they
what people need to understand is if the court is
if you have an activist court, regardless of what the
legislature passes, regardless of what the people vote for, those
kinds of things could become the norm, even if people
don't want it, even if the legislators who are duly
elected to you know, create the laws don't want it.
If you have an activist court, and you certainly have
one in Wisconsin right now, and I think it would
be hyperactive as court, you know, come April second, if
you know the vote goes a certain way, those kinds
of things may not be an anomaly or an unusual spectacle.
It may be an every day occurs because you know,
that's the reality that you have to deal with. So
I do think people see that and they pay attention.
Hopefully they understand you know, again, it's it's just a
matter of degrees. If you will that that people should
look at and say, is this what we want for
our state. It's a legitimate question that they should ask. Again,
our focus is on election integrity, and I want to
talk about that in a second, because there are issues
that the Supreme Court in Wisconsin currently has done that
have taken down barriers on election integrity. But certainly I
do think the cultural issues will play a part. I
think it played a part in twenty twenty four, and
I think it was because it's moved so far off
off to the left that people of even liberals were
just like, hey, that's too much.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, that is an interesting position to be in
for this liberal court. And I think you're absolutely right.
I think this liberal, narrowly liberal controlled court at a
four to three majority, could have done significantly more activist
damage from the leftist point of view. But I think
they kept this critical election in mind because if the
Liberals win again this April, they will control the court.
Speaker 2: For some time.
Speaker 1: It's just the way that the election cycles lend. This
will be at least a few years of control by
the left. Now to election integrity, they did of the
cases that they took up, there was one in particular
that was absolutely remarkable to me because it involved absentee
ballot dropboxes. In twenty twenty, these things were all over
the place, particularly in Wisconsin. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin,
under conservative control in twenty twenty two ruled that they
broke state law, and the language is pretty clear on this.
It didn't take a legal expert to understand that the
state law and what was being allowed under policy in
twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: Did not juib.
Speaker 1: But then given the chance to take up this issue
once again with a liberal court, the liberal court didn't
enter into the merits of the case. Instead, they did
something so baffling to me that, more broadly, their interpretation
of standing on this issue I think created some bigger
prop problems moving forward. Can you talk about that, because
I know that the Center has been very engaged in
this particular legal arena. Absolutely, and you hit it right
on the button.
Speaker 3: You know, it's one thing to have for a court
to make a ruling based on the merits of the case.
What they have done and what they have continued to do,
just most recently unmobile voting vans that go into certain
demographic areas that are heavily democrat but don't go into
you know, either Republican or independent areas is putting their
thumb on the scale. And what they do is they
make their ruling based on standing. And what that does
is it puts up roadblocks for individuals who may be
impacted by this to have to prove that they are
harmed by what's being done. And that is you know,
it's one of those things. And actually it started in
twenty twenty. You saw a lot of the cases that
were brought up after the twenty twenty election were thrown
out because of standing, and so you know, it's one
of those things that the courts will use to make
it more difficult for injured parties to be able to
bring a lawsuit forward and never gets to the issue
itself of whether the issue of what they're doing is
right or wrong according to the law. And it's a
nefarious kind of thing because you know, if you can
get to the point where they are forced to make
a ruling, then you have some kind of precedent that
has been set and some kind of guidance that can
be given.
Speaker 2: But when you.
Speaker 3: Block the attempt or the effort, as they did in
the case you mentioned, as they've done most recently with
the mobile voting vans, it becomes a situation where you
can never get to the content X or the content
of the law itself. And one of the things that
we have said is, and especially on these kinds of
things like the ballot drop boxes, the early voting polling places,
the mobile voting vans, you know, our point is and
sending letters and AFPI has done this, sent letters to
certain counties and to the the Wisconsin Election Board that
if you're going to do that, you have to do
it equally across the board. You can't cherry pick where
you want to do it and who you want to
target it too. That's what political parties do, and that's
perfectly fine. They know they're constituencies they need to turn out,
and they target those people. But you're the government, you're
using taxpayer dollars. Your job is to do it equally
across the board, whether it helps your perceived constituency or not.
So if you're going to have a mobile voting ban
going through a place that is heavily democrat, you should
have another mobile voting plan van going through place that
is heavily Republican or independent. You have to play it
across the board equally without putting your thumb on the
scale when you're using taxpayer dollars. That's one of the
things that hasn't happened there that I think will happen
more frequently if we never get to the point of
getting some of the core issues of these legal interpretations
taken care of.
Speaker 2: It's a great loop. It's not a great loophole. It's
a terrible loophole, but a great.
Speaker 3: Point that you make that not getting to the issue
or the germaneness of the issue itself, is a really
terrible thing, not just for election integrity, but for the
law itself.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you know, there's been a lot of this
going around over the last several years, particularly in twenty twenty.
What we saw, of course with Zuckbucks, the hundreds of
millions of dollars poured into particularly swing state elections, into
heavily democrat areas to attract Democrat voters in the name
of so called nonpartisan election administration grants that were run
by highly partisan leftist organizations. That's what we're dealing with here,
And I misspoke what the standing question in particular was. Indeed,
as you mentioned, Mike, the racine mobile voter van which
has been labeled as a polling site on wheels. The
city of Racine, which was so immersed in this Zuckbuck scandal,
used Zuckerbuck money. That's the thing that I think people forget.
They used one hundreds of thousands of dollars from Mark
Zuckerberg's large s to purchase this voting booth on wheels,
and they drove it into highly Democrat areas. The Wisconsin
Supreme Court, under liberal control, said, after a lower court said, Houston,
We've got a problem here with this because state law
clearly lays out the fact that you can't make these things,
as you mentioned, Mike, a partisan issue. You can't favor
one party over another. What you had was the left
led Wisconsin Supreme Court saying, We're not even going to
take this case. We're not even going to rule on
this case because the guy who brought it, a Raceine
County residence resident, does not have standing. How can a
Racine County, a Racine City resident, not have standing? That individual,
a Republican, was indeed arguably harmed, was he not?
Speaker 3: It's his city absolutely, that's you know, I mean again,
if it was you know, someone from out of state
saying something.
Speaker 2: You know, you can understand that.
Speaker 3: Again, it goes to that common sense I keep saying,
the and sense test or thermometer. You know, the person
lives there, the person elects their local officials there. You
can't get any more basic than that. As someone that
has an interest in and an impact on these policies
and so, and you bring up a good point. They
used Zuckerbuck's money to buy this mobile van, and so
you could see the thread that runs through a lot
of this stuff. Most people don't see that because they
go about their daily lives every day, but it does
have an impact on your local you know, on how
you're able to live your life, and that's why people
need to pay attention to this kind of stuff. But
it is an interesting to me. That's a huge one
because again it's kind of playing it's not kind of
it's playing with the law and saying you know, you don't. Again,
people's rights are kind of being taken away from them.
You know. They first, you have their right to be
able to express their their desire, their vote in the
polling place through the referendum. They elect elected officials at
the state, at the local and legislative level, to represent them.
And now you've got someone who's impacted by something that's
happening in their town, who's a taxpayer, and they're not
even being able to be given a voice saying they
don't have any standing. It's it's not what democracy is
all about.
Speaker 1: It feels like thumb on the scale, on the digicial
scale on the scale absolutely. Speaking of which, I will
point out the story that we reported on at the Federalist,
but the Center for Election Integrity for the American Policy
Institute has filed a complaint. I wanted to get an
update on that. It's something we alluded to earlier. It's
Judge Susan Crawford, the liberal candidate in the Wisconsin Supreme
Court race earlier this year, was on a phone call
with a bunch of well healed leftist donors. That phone
call was orchestrated and put together by Reid Hoffman, billionaire
leftist donor. And I'm my understanding according to the reporting,
is that former Obama administration Attorney general was in the room.
Speaker 2: Too, Eric Holder.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And what they were talking about was this was
not only Wisconsin's big chance, but it was Democrats nationally,
They're big chance to have a justice on the Supreme Court,
a liberal majority that would reconfigure the congressional maps that
could give Democrats. That would give Democrats a significant advantage
in the twenty twenty six midterm elections, in which it
could be very likely that control of two congressional districts
now held by Republicans could swing to Democrats. As you
mentioned before, Mike, that could have a significant impact on
who ultimately controls the House in twenty twenty six. Give
us an update, if you would, on the complaint what
it's about in where all of this is heading.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's you know, it's.
Speaker 3: Again you kind of look at it and say, better
judgment would have said that if you're running for Supreme
Court position and you're joining a call and you use
the word well healed, which is my life goal to
someday be included in the words well healed.
Speaker 2: As his mind, you know, it's it's a good goal
to have in life.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I like to be I like to be healed
on all frunts, particularly when it's well and involves money.
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly, but you know.
Speaker 3: I mean comments again, I keep it to saying this,
but common sense says, if you're a candidate for.
Speaker 2: An office, you should probably be on that phone.
Speaker 3: Call where they're raising money and and you know, the
whole press uh premise of it is, this is an
opportunity to get a court that will you know, put
in redistricting lines that will benefit one political party and
you know, gain two seats that indeed, if everything says
the way it is, would change the makeup of the
United States House of Representatives. And so people should ask
the question, honestly, and I'm not going to answer it
for you, but ask the question, you know, shouldn't you
have enough common sense to not be on that kind
of phone call when you're the candidate. I mean, that's
how I looked at it when I read that story.
And yes, a AFPI has been sent some letters about
not only that, but especially the whole thing about the
polling mechanics of the election, the polling places and things
like that. But those are the kinds of things that
are a window into what is actually taking place that
people should pay attention to because there are.
Speaker 2: Greater forces involved.
Speaker 3: You know, it will impact the everyday life this election
will impact the everyday life of wisconsin Ites, but it
also is something that people outside of Wisconsin are clearly
using as you described as a platform or a springboard
to something larger. And that's why I think, you know,
to kind of put the bow on it. The Wall
Street Journal has said what they've said that it's the
most important election in twenty.
Speaker 1: Five Quickly you raised the issue. I think this is
an important point. A complaint that you have filed involves
what is known as polling site jerry mandering. What is
polling site jerry mandering? What's that stake? What's that issue?
In Wisconsin?
Speaker 3: It's you know, it's where you take a particular county
and you know a certain section of the county is
more blue than red, and the election officials decide to
put more early voting in polling places, early voting places
and polling places in the blue areas to make it
more easier and convenient than it is for the people
that are either independent or more conservative. And so again
my point, which goes to what I said earlier, is
this should be across the board. It should be you know,
if you've got fifteen polling places in a particular county,
it should be spread out where the population is, not
where the voter registration, the party affiliation is or the.
Speaker 2: Affiliate, you know, the candidate affiliation is.
Speaker 3: So what we found is doing some research that the
early voting polling places and the polling places themselves in
some of these counties like Dane County and others, are
more heavily more polling places that put in the more
heavily Democrat voting areas than they are either where there
are ticket splitters or Republicans, and that should not be
the case.
Speaker 2: Again, it.
Speaker 3: Should be equal across the board without the thumb being
on the scale for any side. That's what nonpartisan elections,
that's what good election integrity is about. It doesn't favor
one side or the other side. It is equal across
the board. And clearly, if you've got more polling places
in a certain area that favors a certain party, that's
not equal across the board.
Speaker 1: I agree with you, but I guess the question that
comes up. As a former resident of Dane County and
one of the six card carrying members of the Concernative
Movement there again, I've said this many times. We used
to have, you know, a meeting where we'd come together
and everyone would say I would I would walk in,
I would say hi, everyone, I'm Matt and I'm a conservative.
That's how Madison is. So how do you find a
place in Madison in particular that isn't you know, a
massive leftist neighborhood. I know that the complaint also notes Lacrosse,
which indeed, you know, has it's changed its demographic over
the years. It has many more Republicans. But Madison's a
that is, you know, a leftist enclave this side of Havana.
Speaker 2: Oh no, yes it is.
Speaker 3: But but and again it's you know, one of the
things I lived, I said, said for twenty five years
in southern California. I also was born and brought up
in Providence, Rhode Island. And you know, literally the place,
you know, the area that I lived in. I think
they were something like five thousand Democrats and seven hundred Republicans.
You know it should just the point is, yes, there
will be uh, you know places. The way to look
at where you put your polling places is not based
on the registration. It's based on the population. What they're doing,
what we're saying they're doing is it's based on registration,
not population. Now, will that mean that there are more
polling places necessarily in a Democrat area, because it is
heavily democrat possibly, but that should be based on the population,
not the registration. And that's the key of determining how
these things are set up. That's what they're supposed to
be doing. And you know from the research our attorneys
at America First Policy looked at that's that's certainly in question.
It needs to be looked at.
Speaker 2: Very good.
Speaker 1: You've been very generous with your time. Final way, final,
final question for you, and it is this, and I
won't ask you to put on you know, your soothsayer
cap no addictions, but I will ask you this, what
happens if conservatives take back this court in Wisconsin. What
happens if the left retains control of this court?
Speaker 3: Well, I think if the answer is the same. If
I think, if the conservatives win control of the court,
then what you have is the power of the legislature
to make the laws is enforced the will of the
people that vote at the ballot box on referendum, even
the referendum on abortion. You know, if it's the will
of the people, then it's the will of the people.
I mean, that's what the President has said over and
over about the issue. And so I think the will
of the people and the Constitution is upheld. If the
left wins, then it becomes it becomes a situation where
the court is driving the policy of the state, and
that's not the way things should be. It should be
the policy of the state is driven by the will
of the people. They're elected representatives, and I think if
the left wins on this, it will not only be
something that the folks of Wisconsin will have to deal with,
but it'll be something that folks around the country will
see as a path to circumvent the will of the
people and circumvent the Constitution and the states that have
the legislators making the laws.
Speaker 1: Well. With all apologies to some very important gubernatorial races
in twenty twenty five, this Wisconsin Supreme Court race is
the most important election of twenty twenty five for all
the reasons that we laid out. It is thanks to
my guest today, Mike Delante, director of the Center for
Election Integrity at the America First Policy Institute. You've been
listening to another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm
Matt Kittle, Senior elections correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be
back soon with more. Until then, stay lovers of freedom.
I'm anxious for the fraid.
Speaker 3: I heard the fame, voice the reason, and then it
faded away.