Multiple Documents - Ohio State University · , No. 12-C-212, 2015 WL 5673016, at *3 n.2 (E.D. Wis....

Multiple DocumentsPart Description1 11 pages2 Exhibit 1 - The Devil's Advocates Radio Talk Show Interview3 Exhibit 2 - January 18, 2011 News Article4 Exhibit 3 - April 3, 2014 News Article5 Exhibit 4 - January 9, 2014 News Article6 Exhibit 5 - April 5, 2016 Grothman Statement to TMJ4

One Wisconsin Institute, Inc. et al v. Nichol, Gerald et al, Docket No. 3:15-cv-00324 (W.D. Wis. May 29, 2015), Court Docket

© 2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 1

http://www.bna.com/terms-of-service-subscription-products

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ONE WISCONSIN INSTITUTE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GERALD C. NICHOL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-324

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING LEGISLATORS’ PUBLIC STATEMENTS

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, by their undersigned counsel, file this motion in limine regarding a March 2014

radio interview of then-State Senator Dale Schultz and several public statements made by

Congressman and former State Senator Glenn Grothman. Each of these statements is probative

of a central issue in this case—the intent with which the challenged provisions were enacted—

and two of Rep. Grothman’s statements are racial appeals, which are relevant to this Court’s

analysis of the Voting Rights Act claim in this case.

Plaintiffs anticipate that the State will object on hearsay grounds to the introduction of the

evidence discussed in this motion. As set forth below, however, all of this evidence is

admissible as non-hearsay and/or pursuant to an exception to the hearsay rule. This Court should

therefore hold that the hearsay rule does not bar the admission of this evidence at trial.

EVIDENCE AT ISSUE

Plaintiffs first seek to introduce an audio recording and transcript (the latter of which is

attached as Exhibit 1) of a March 12, 2014 interview of Sen. Schultz. Among other things,

Schultz explained in that interview:

Case: 3:15-cv-00324-jdp Document #: 160 Filed: 05/03/16 Page 1 of 11

2

• “[W]e’ve had about 25 bills that deal with elections and voting. And I think almost anybody could say to themselves, what on earth is going on.” Ex. 1 at 3:7-10.

• Sen. Schultz had begun that session thinking that “there was some lack of faith” in the voting process that needed to be addressed, but he had “come to the conclusion that . . . this is far less noble.” Id. at 3:12-16.

• “[I]t’s just, I think, sad when a political party, my political party has so lost faith in its ideas that it’s pouring all of its energy into election mechanics” and “it ought to be abundantly clear to everybody in this state that there is no massive voter fraud. The only thing that we do have in this state is we have long lines of people who want to vote . . . .” Id. at 4:19-5:4.

• “[W]e should be pitching, as . . . political parties, our ideas for improving things in the future rather than mucking around in the mechanics and making it more confrontational at our voting sites . . . and trying to suppress the vote.” Id. at 5:7-11.

• “[T]hese bills came up rather swiftly at the end of the session here. I don’t think we gave people adequate opportunity to comment on them.” Id. at 6:23-7:1.

Second, Plaintiffs seek to introduce the news article attached as Exhibit 2 to demonstrate

that, in 2011, then-Senator Grothman kept his office open on the federal holiday honoring Dr.

Martin Luther King, Jr.; that Grothman said that giving public employees the day off “is an insult

to all the other taxpayers around the state”; and that, when asked if he had any plans to honor Dr.

King on the holiday, Grothman said that he has “got kind of a busy schedule.”

Third, Plaintiffs seek to introduce the article attached as Exhibit 3 to demonstrate that

then-Senator Grothman wrote the following in 2012: “Of course, almost no black people today

care about Kwanzaa—just white left-wingers who try to shove this down black people’s throats

in an effort to divide Americans.”

Fourth, Plaintiffs seek to introduce the article attached as Exhibit 4 to demonstrate that

then-Senator Grothman made the following statements in late 2013: “Between [early voting],

mail absentee, and voting the day of election, you know, I mean anybody who can’t vote with all

those options, they’ve really got a problem”; “I really don’t think they care that much about


3

voting in the first place, right?”; and “We can have some of these ones that are completely out of

control, doing maybe 80 hours a week, we can rein them in.”

Fifth, Plaintiffs seek to introduce a video and transcript (the latter of which is attached as

Exhibit 5) of an April 5, 2016 interview in which Rep. Grothman, when asked about the fact that

Republicans have not been able to win presidential races in Wisconsin since 1984, said, “Well, I

think Hillary Clinton is about the weakest candidate the Democrats have ever put up and now we

have photo ID, and I think photo ID is going to make a little bit of a difference as well.”

ARGUMENT

A. Exhibits 2-4

The statements by then-Senator Grothman regarding Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day,

Kwanzaa, and how people who cannot vote with the options available have “really got a

problem,” see Exs. 2-4, are all admissible non-hearsay. “‘If . . . an extrajudicial utterance is

offered, not as an assertion to evidence the matter asserted, but without reference to the truth of

the matter asserted, the hearsay rule does not apply.’” Lee v. McCaughtry, 892 F.2d 1318, 1324

(7th Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original) (quoting 6 J.H. Wigmore, Evidence § 1766, at 250 (1976));

cf. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) (hearsay is an out-of-court statement that “a party offers in evidence to

prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement”).

Here, the statements in Exhibits 2-4 plainly are not being offered for the truth of the

matters asserted in those statements. On the contrary, the statements regarding Dr. Martin

Luther King, Jr. Day and Kwanzaa are being offered as evidence of recent racial appeals, as

evidence of then-Senator Grothman’s intent with respect to the challenged provisions, and as

evidence of what other lawmakers and Governor Walker knew about Grothman’s intent with

respect to the challenged provisions. Likewise, the statements in Exhibit 4 in which then-Senator


4

Grothman denigrated those who have difficulty voting are being offered as evidence of

Grothman’s hostility toward such voters and thus his intent with respect to the challenged

provisions. See generally Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Wise, 184 F.3d 660, 664 (7th Cir. 1999)

(affirming district court’s decision to admit decedent’s suicide note as non-hearsay evidence

because it was offered to prove intent and not for its truth); BKCAP, LLC v. CAPTEC Franchise

Trust 2000-1, 688 F.3d 810, 814 (7th Cir. 2012) (affirming district court’s admission of evidence

as non-hearsay because it was offered to show intent and not to prove the truth of the matter

asserted) (citing Catalan v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 629 F.3d 676, 694 (7th Cir. 2011)). The

hearsay rule therefore does not bar the admission of Exhibits 2-4.1

B. Exhibit 5 and the Related Video

The video in which Rep. Grothman asserted that “photo ID is going to make a little bit of

a difference” in the upcoming presidential election and the transcript of that video (Exhibit 5) are

admissible for the truth of the matter asserted. First, the pertinent statement in the video and the

transcript should be admitted as a party statement or the effective equivalent thereof. See

generally Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(C); Michaels v. Michaels, 767 F.2d 1185, 1201 (7th Cir. 1985)

(even if declarant was not technically an agent of the opposing party, because he was authorized

to make statements on the subject at issue, the statements were not hearsay and were admissible

as statements of opposing party). Although the named Defendants in this case are members or

staff of the Government Accountability Board, these individuals are being sued in their official

capacities, and the Supreme Court has explained that “[a] suit against a state officer in his

1 These statements are also admissible under some of the rationales set forth below. As explained, Grothman’s statements that relate to the challenged provisions should be regarded as party statements. In addition, these statements are admissible pursuant to the residual hearsay exception: They were published in reputable sources, and there is no evidence that any corrections have been issued. Moreover, the statements are probative of intent and demonstrate that racial appeals have recently been made by a prominent Wisconsin politician.


5

official capacity is, of course, a suit against the State.” Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 57 n.2

(1986) (emphasis added). Because the legislators who supported the enactment of the challenged

provisions—including Grothman—were exercising the authority of the State in doing so, the

statements of such legislators in relation to the challenged provisions are party statements. To be

sure, Rep. Grothman was no longer a senator at the time he made the statement about photo ID

making a difference in the upcoming presidential election; but he was a senator and a supporter

of the voter ID law at the time it was enacted, and he thus remains an individual who participated

in exercising the authority of the State in connection with the adoption of the voter ID law,

meaning that his statements with respect to that law are in effect the statements of a party.

Second, if Rep. Grothman is unavailable for trial, his statement about the impact of the

voter ID law on the upcoming presidential election should be admitted as a statement against

interest. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3)(A), an out-of-court statement by an

unavailable witness is not excluded by the rule against hearsay if the statement is one that “a

reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to

be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary

interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to

expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability.” Accord Am. Automotive Accessories, Inc. v.

Fishman, 175 F.3d 534, 541 (7th Cir. 1999) (applying this rule in a civil context); see, e.g.,

Greengrass v. Int’l Monetary Sys., Ltd., No. 12-C-212, 2015 WL 5673016, at *3 n.2 (E.D. Wis.

Sept. 25, 2015) (recruiter’s statement to jobseeker that jobseeker was unemployable was

admissible “as a statement against interest, because a recruiter/headhunter has a pecuniary

interest in finding viable employment candidates”). In this case, Grothman’s statement in

Exhibit 5 demonstrates that he believes that the voter ID law will benefit Republicans electorally


6

and it therefore supports the conclusion that, in supporting that law, Grothman intended—in

violation of the Constitution—to abridge or deny voting rights for groups of voters who tend to

vote Democratic. Because such a finding would be contrary to Grothman’s interests, Exhibit 5

should be admitted if Grothman is unavailable for trial.

Third, Exhibit 5 and the related video are admissible under the residual exception to the

hearsay rule. ‘“A statement not specifically covered by Rule 803 or 804 but having equivalent

circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court

determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is

more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent

can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the

interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.’” Lottie v. W.

Am. Ins. Co., 248 F. App’x 734, 741 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 807).

All of these factors are met here. Because there is a video of the statement at issue, there

is no question that Rep. Grothman made the statement; its trustworthiness is beyond dispute.

The statement is also plainly material, as it shows that Grothman believes the voter ID law will

benefit Republicans electorally, and it is therefore probative of his intent in supporting that law.

The combination of these factors—certainty as to the accuracy of the statement and the probative

value of the statement to an important issue in this case—supports the conclusion that the Rules

of Evidence and the interests of justice will be served by the admission of Exhibit 5 and the

related video. And, it is not clear what evidence would be more probative of the electoral impact

that Grothman believes the voter ID law will have than his recent televised statement on this

issue. Exhibit 5 and the related video are thus admissible pursuant to the residual hearsay

exception.


7

Fourth, Grothman’s statement about the impact of the voter ID law should be considered

because, Plaintiffs anticipate, Dr. Lichtman will testify at trial that this statement supports his

conclusion that the challenged provisions were enacted with discriminatory intent. The Seventh

Circuit has explained that an expert “may base the opinion to which he testifies on any materials

on which he would base a . . . determination in his ordinary professional work, whether or not the

testimony would be inadmissible if given by a nonexpert witness.” Price v. Thurmer, 637 F.3d

831, 837–38 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 703); see also Boim v. Holy Land Found. for

Relief & Dev., 549 F.3d 685, 704 (7th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“[A]n expert is not limited to relying

on admissible evidence in forming his opinion. That would be a crippling limitation because

experts don’t characteristically base their expert judgments on legally admissible evidence; the

rules of evidence are not intended for the guidance of experts.”) (citations omitted).

Under this rule, social scientists, historians, and other experts may reasonably rely upon

statements in the media. See Katt v. City of New York, 151 F. Supp. 2d 313, 357 (S.D.N.Y.

2001); Bolden v. City of Mobile, 542 F. Supp. 1050, 1060–66 (S.D. Ala. 1982) (historian’s expert

testimony could include information from newspapers); Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. of

Elections, 114 F. Supp. 3d 323, 340-41 (E.D. Va. 2015) (“Direct evidence of discriminatory

intent is not necessary to prevail [in a Voting Rights case]. . . . For evidentiary purposes,

Plaintiffs may resort to various sources of information, including ‘special interest group position

papers,’ ‘press releases,’ ‘newspaper articles,’ . . . .”) (quoting Comm. for a Fair & Balanced

Map v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, No. 11 C 5065, 2011 WL 4837508, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12,

2011)); see also Scott v. Ross, 140 F.3d 1275, 1286 (9th Cir. 1998) (sociologist expert in anti-

cult movement permitted to rely upon newspaper articles); Mann v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 114 F.3d

1188, at *2 (6th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (psychological expert permitted to rely upon newspaper


8

articles). Moreover, the case for considering such evidence is particularly forceful where, as

here, a court, rather than a jury, is entrusted with fact-finding. See Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct.

2221, 2235 (2012) (“When the judge sits as the trier of fact, it is presumed that the judge will

understand the limited reason for the disclosure of the underlying inadmissible information and

will not rely on that information for any improper purpose.”).

A video of an interview and the related transcript (Exhibit 5) are precisely the types of

materials that Dr. Lichtman and other historians rely upon in their ordinary professional work.

Cf. Dkt. No. 75 (Lichtman Rpt. at 3) (report “draws upon . . . sources standard in historical and

social scientific analysis,” including “newspaper and other journalistic articles”). Indeed, in a

broad array of cases, including Voting Rights Act cases, courts have rejected attempts to exclude

expert testimony regarding the factual inferences supporting a finding of intentional

discrimination—inferences drawn from a variety of sources, including contemporaneous media

accounts. See, e.g., South Carolina v. United States, No. 12-203, ECF No. 226 (D.D.C. Aug. 22,

2012) (denying motion to exclude testimony of expert witnesses who relied, in part, on

newspaper articles, press releases, and social media posts); Perez v. Perry, No. 5:11-cv-00360,

ECF No. 1131 (W.D. Tex. July 9, 2014) (allowing expert witnesses to draw on a large body of

information to opine on legislative intent).

Fifth, if the Court does not admit Exhibit 5 and the related video for the truth of the

matter asserted, it should admit those materials as non-hearsay evidence that is probative of

legislative intent. As noted, Grothman’s statement about the impact of the voter ID law on the

upcoming presidential election demonstrates that he believes that it will benefit Republicans

electorally, and it accordingly provides evidence of his intent in supporting the law.


9

C. Exhibit 1 and the Related Audio Recording

The audio recording of the March 12, 2014 interview of Sen. Dale Schultz and the

transcript of that interview (Exhibit 1) are likewise admissible for multiple reasons. To begin

with, they should be considered because Dr. Lichtman relies upon Sen. Schultz’s statements in

his expert report. See Dkt. No. 75 (Lichtman Rpt. at 5, 47, 51-52, 59).

In addition, the audio and transcript are admissible pursuant to the residual hearsay

exception: There is no doubt that Sen. Schultz made the statements attributed to him—there is a

recording, see also Jack Craver, “Dale Schultz: ‘I Am Not Willing to Defend Them Anymore,”

Capital Times, Mar. 18, 2014 (discussing interview), available at http://host.madison.com/ct/

news/local/writers/jack_craver/dale-schultz-i-am-not-willing-to-defend-them-anymore/article_

7c35 98f2-ae16-11e3-8097-0019bb2963f4.html—and the statement of a member of the

Republican caucus in the State Senate that his Republican colleagues were “making it more

confrontational at our voting sites . . . and trying to suppress the vote,” Ex. 1 at 5:10-11, is an

extraordinary assertion and highly probative of the State Senate’s intent in enacting the

challenged provisions. The Rules of Evidence and the interests of justice thus support the

admission of Exhibit 1 and the related audio recording.

Further, the audio and transcript of the interview of Sen. Schultz are admissible as

evidence of the knowledge and intent with which other lawmakers and Governor Walker acted

when taking actions with respect to election-related legislation subsequent to Sen. Schultz’s

interview. Where an out-of-court statement is offered to prove that a listener had notice of the

information contained in the statement, the rule against hearsay does not apply. See Cook v.

Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 940 F.2d 207, 213 (7th Cir. 1991) (evidence admissible over

hearsay rule where “it was offered to show actual or constructive knowledge”); see also United


10

States v. Linwood, 142 F.3d 418, 425 (7th Cir. 1998) (“[t]he case law of this Circuit leaves no

doubt that [offering out-of-court statement to show effect on listener] is a non-hearsay purpose”);

United States v. Hanson, 994 F.2d 403, 406 (7th Cir. 1993). Here, the statements that Sen.

Schultz made in the March 12, 2014 interview are probative of the knowledge and intent of

members of the State Assembly and Governor Walker in enacting the legislation eliminating

weekend and evening in-person absentee voting,2 and of Governor Walker’s knowledge and

intent in signing 2013 Wis. Act 177,3 which requires that observation areas be placed within

three to eight feet of the tables at which voters sign in and obtain their ballots and register to

vote, and 2013 Wis. Act 182,4 which requires that all individuals registering to vote, other than

overseas and military voters, provide documentary proof of residence irrespective of when they

register.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court should hold that the hearsay rule does not bar

the admission of the evidence addressed in this motion in limine.

2 This was passed by the State Assembly on March 20, 2014, and signed by Governor Walker, with a partial veto, a week later. See https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/proposals/sb324. 3 This was signed on April 2, 2014. See https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/proposals/ab202. 4 This was signed on April 2, 2014. See https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/proposals/sb267.


11

Dated this 2nd day of May, 2016. Respectfully submitted, PERKINS COIE LLP

By s/ Joshua L. Kaul Joshua L. Kaul [email protected] Charles G. Curtis, Jr. [email protected] One East Main Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703

Telephone: (608) 663-7460 Facsimile: (608) 663-7499 Marc E. Elias [email protected] Bruce V. Spiva [email protected] Elisabeth C. Frost [email protected] Rhett P. Martin [email protected] Joseph P. Wenzinger [email protected] Aria C. Branch [email protected] Colin Z. Allred [email protected] 700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005-3960 Telephone: (202) 654-6200 Facsimile: (202) 654-6211 Bobbie J. Wilson [email protected] 505 Howard Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 344-7000 Facsimile: (415) 344-7050

Attorneys for Plaintiffs


Exhibit 1

Case: 3:15-cv-00324-jdp Document #: 160-1 Filed: 05/03/16 Page 1 of 10

Audio File March 9, 2016

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATES RADIO TALK SHOW

10 WITH GUEST SENATOR DALE SHULTZ

11

12 Interview was posted on 3/12/2014

13

14

15

16 (Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording,

transcript produced by transcription service.)

17

VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY

18 MID-ATLANTIC REGION

1801 Market Street - Suite 1800

19 Philadelphia, PA 19103

(888) 777-6690

20

21

22

23

24 Transcriber: Christine M. Aiello

25

Page 1

Capital Reporting - A Veritext Company(866) 448-DEPO


Audio File March 9, 2016Page 2

1 "THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATES"23 RECORDED MESSAGE: This is how to be, this is4 how to be, this is how to be. The Devil's Advocates,5 the fix for political junkies everywhere, on the Mic6 92.1 and the Mic92.1.com.7 MIKE CRUTE: And we are back from the 4208 break. Thank you so much for listening. Please check9 us out on Facebook, the Devil's Advocates radio.

10 Follow us on Twitter at double radio. And the phone11 line at the studio is (608) 321-0921. We are joined12 right now by a very special guest, friend of the13 Devil's Advocates, Senator Dale Schultz.14 Dale, welcome back to the show.15 SENATOR SCHULTZ: Well, I'm delighted to be16 back.17 MIKE CRUTE: Well, I'm delighted you're here,18 sir. I have been watching what's been going on in the19 Wisconsin State Senate for the last two days.20 SENATOR SCHULTZ: Uh-oh.21 MIKE CRUTE: Sir, are you the only moderate22 left in this world? I have looked, and everything has23 gone straight did you know partisan lines with you24 seemingly as the man in the middle, Dale. A lot of25 this legislation has passed, 17-16, you being the only

Page 3

1 Republican voting against. I'm going to start, if I2 could, sir, with this reduction on early voting.3 You're opposed to this legislation.4 Can you tell me what your colleagues on the5 right, what their justification is, Dale?6 SENATOR SCHULTZ: Well, I think first of all,7 it -- it needs to be said we've had about 25 bills that8 deal with elections and voting. And I think almost9 anybody could say to themselves, what on earth is going

10 on. There seems to be this mythology that we have all11 these voting irregularities and this massive fraud.12 I -- I began this session thinking that, you know,13 there was some lack of faith in our voting process14 and -- and we maybe needed to address it; but I have15 come to the conclusion that -- that this is far less16 noble.17 And in the spirit of the champion of the 195718 Voting Rights Act, I have been trying to send the19 message that we are not encouraging voting, we are not20 making voting easier in my way, shape, or form by these21 bills. And back in 1957 with the leadership of22 president Dwight Eisenhower, Republicans were doing23 that, and that makes me sad frankly.24 MIKE CRUTE: And I see that while there was no25 prior debate, Senator majority leader Scott Fitzgerald

Page 4

1 said this is going to even the playing field for rural2 areas where the rural clerks can't keep the offices3 open. I see there's 200,000 earmarked now as part of4 this Senate legislation passed today. A, is that5 enough; and B, why not put more money in it, Dale, and6 expand the voting hours across the state? Why reduce7 them in all areas?8 SENATOR SCHULTZ: Well, you -- you have me9 somewhat at a disadvantage because I -- I can't find

10 any real reason for doing what we're doing. I talk to11 clerks regularly. I get around my district. And the12 overwhelming sentiment is, "please stop helping us,"13 because you're making our job impossible, you're making14 it impossible for us to get people to be here to do15 elections. And different places have different needs.16 I don't see how you can claim to be improving17 things by actually reducing hours, as illogical as that18 sounds; but, you know, maybe this is Never Never Land,19 who -- who knows. But you know, it's just, I think,20 sad when a political party, my political party has so21 lost faith in its ideas that it's pouring all of its22 energy into election mechanics.23 And again, I'm a guy who understands and24 appreciates what we should be doing in order to make25 sure every vote counts, every vote is legitimate; but

Page 5

1 the fact is, it ought to be abundantly clear to2 everybody in this state that there is no massive voter3 fraud. The only thing that we do have in this state is4 we have long lines of people who want to vote, and it5 seems to be that we should be doing everything we can6 to make it easier to help these people get their votes7 counted and that we should be pitching, as -- as8 political parties, our ideas for improving things in9 the future rather than mucking around in the mechanics

10 and making it more confrontational at our voting sites11 and, you know, and trying to suppress the vote.12 MIKE CRUTE: Folks, you're listening to the13 Devil's Advocates radio show on the Mic 92.1. State14 Senator Dale Schultz joins us on the phone. Dale,15 looking at the reporting here of Patrick Marley in the16 Journal Sentinel, he's, points out that this is the17 second time the Republicans have pursued this line,18 since 2011, that year Walker and GOP lawmakers cut back19 the early voting period from three weeks, including20 three weekends, to two weeks, including one weekend.21 And now I assume we're still at two weeks22 and -- and no weekends; is that correct?23 SENATOR SCHULTZ: I believe that's correct.24 MIKE CRUTE: And one of the things I did not25 know, which really struck me, as I try be fairly well

2 (Pages 2 - 5)Capital Reporting - A Veritext Company



1 read doing this show is that, you know, now we're going2 to be able to vote between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and3 that seems, well, that's a -- it's an 11-hour window in4 a day, 55 hours in a week, we should be able to get5 some time in there; but what I was not aware until the6 reporting of Patrick Marley today is that that's7 limited to a total of 45 voting hours within those,8 that five-day span.9 I -- I don't, what I don't understand is why.

10 It, was there some cost-benefit analysis done on this11 as to how much it would cost to open this up to the12 rural areas? Because short of any reasonable13 explanation, how can I sit and defend, as I -- as I do14 often on this show, some of these conservative policies15 if it's just not trying to shut down other city's16 voting opportunities?17 SENATOR SCHULTZ: Well, let me just say, my18 friend, I am not willing to defend them anymore.19 I'm -- I'm just not, and I'm embarrassed by this. And20 you know, I didn't try to be an obstructionist or act21 out, we had enough of that going on, but I -- I think22 it's really clear where my sentiments weigh. You know23 furthermore, these bills came up rather swiftly at the24 end of the session here.25 I don't think we gave people adequate

Page 7

1 opportunity to comment on them. And -- and I think,2 I -- I -- I just see it as plain wrong. And I -- I3 tell you, I haven't heard any good reasons for these.4 I haven't had any of my constituents suggesting there5 is a need for these. It is all predicated on some6 belief that there is massive fraud irregularities,7 something my colleagues have been hot on the trail of8 for the last three years and have failed miserably at9 demonstrating.

10 MIKE CRUTE: Senator Schultz, I don't mean to11 pile on, but let's talk about some more embarrassing12 legislation. SB 655, this lobbyist donation bill13 moving up the timeframe where lobbyist may give14 campaign cash to candidates for differing elected15 office. Was there any grassroots call for this bill,16 sir?17 SENATOR SCHULTZ: None whatsoever. What there18 was, was plenty of people saying, don't do this, we are19 awash in money now. How does making it easier for more20 lobbyists to put more dollars into our campaigns21 improve things? Sooner or later we have to stop the22 insanity and start demanding greater disclosure and --23 and periods of time when we're not going to allow money24 to pour into the process.25 Now we have fine people who lobby the

Page 8

1 legislature, and I'm not here to denigrate them, I'm2 just saying that people have a right to know and see3 these things. We need greater disclosure. And4 certainly I think you probably know I signed onto the5 move to amend a resolution. I think that we need, as6 the Supreme Court has said, greater disclosure in our7 campaign financing. And I would point out, when I was8 the majority leader, the very first bill I brought to9 the State Senate dealt with campaign financing,

10 although at that time Governor Doyle was able to peel11 back enough people, because I assume they thought they12 could take advantage of the laws given the way they13 are.14 I find everywhere I go, people are sick and15 tired of a system that serves them less and less over16 time. And I just, I -- I -- to me this is not a17 Republican or a Democrat issue, it's about people18 having the right to be heard, having the right to19 participate in a government that is supposed to be by20 and for them.21 MIKE CRUTE: Dale, I saw my corporate22 lobbyists from the WRA, I am unfortunately a member of23 that organization, he was quoted in the paper the other24 day, and contained within that SB 655, he made note of25 the fact there is one provision that raises the ability

Page 9

1 of packs to raise from $500 or to spend money in2 fundraising activities, took the cap from $500 to3 $20,000, that's a 40 times increase. Dale, is that4 simply inflation?5 SENATOR SCHULTZ: I -- like I said, I'm not6 taking the bait. I'm not defending this. I voted no,7 and that's as clear a signal as I can make. Everybody,8 I think, clearly understands there's going to be9 retribution for what I've done, but I believe very

10 strongly in a Republican party that I think shares a11 heritage with Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight12 Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan; and I don't think any of13 these people would pushing these policies.14 MIKE CRUTE: I've got to jump on, Dale, how15 about the asbestos legislation that passed, did you see16 any of the merits that were being argued by Senator17 Grothman and others saying, you know, if someone is18 going to file litigation, they should have to tell19 people all possible defendants and there -- therefore20 should be a six-month delay, or is this simply a stall21 tactic waiting for patients to die?22 SENATOR SCHULTZ: Well, I think all of us23 worry about lawsuits that -- that have the potential to24 do great harm to plaintiffs. But I think that, you25 know, for me the deciding issue is -- is the




1 recognition that a disproportionate number of these2 cases are falling on the backs of our nation's heroes,3 our -- our war veterans. And to ignore that and4 somehow or another suggest that other needs are5 greater, I think just makes quite a statement.6 And you know, I have long appreciated and --7 and -- and been involved with the American Legion, with8 the Purple Heart organization, and a number of other9 organizations. They represent 60,000 veterans. And --

10 and you know, I -- I kind of agree with -- with Senator11 Risser that this bill is certainly a slap in the face,12 at the very least, to some of the people who gave some13 of the most vital years of their lives in the service14 of their country. I have voted for many, many, many15 pieces of tort reform.16 I don't recognize that the system is perfect,17 I just don't see that this bill makes things better.18 MIKE CRUTE: Dale, I realize you've been very19 generous with your time. I've got one last question.20 Procedurally the Speaker, or excuse me, Majority Leader21 Fitzgerald pushed Cancer Chemotherapy Affordability Act22 off the legislative calendar today simply by calling23 for a hearing that would take place after the workday.24 Have you seen this sort of procedural wrangling,25 whether it be Fitzgerald pushing the whole calendar to

Page 11

1 the end of the night yesterday or the Dems pushing it2 back onto this morning's calendar or this pushing of3 had cancer legislation off the calendar today; is this4 the way the sausage is made down in the Senate, sir?5 SENATOR SCHULTZ: I would say what he did was6 certainly not an abuse of the process. It's a7 technique that's been used -- used many times, and it's8 generally done at the discretion of the leader, who has9 enormous power. I would assume, and I want to be very

10 careful I'm not speaking for him, nor do I want to11 impune his motives, but I assume that he didn't, he had12 some members who did not want to be seen voting on this13 one way or the other, so he essentially killed it with14 this parliamentary maneuver, but there's really15 nothing, I -- I think, unusual about it. It's16 certainly allowed within the rules.17 And I want to make it clear, had that bill18 come to a vote, I believe very strongly that -- that19 cancer patients should be able to choose how they take20 their medicine.21 MIKE CRUTE: And that was Republican Alberta22 Darling's legislation that did not get voted on.23 Senator Dale Schultz, we appreciate all your time.24 Obviously we can't cover it all, but you've been very25 generous with your time. I am a little frustrated. I

Page 12

1 suspect you may be as well, sir.2 SENATOR SCHULTZ: Well, I am, but I've been3 doing this for 49 years, and lord help me, I -- I do4 love it, and I suspect I'll miss part of it, but part5 of it I'll miss about as much as a -- as a root canal.6 MIKE CRUTE: Dale Schultz, well said. Thank7 you for your time, sir.8 SENATOR SCHULTZ: Create a great day for9 yourself, and I hope the listeners do as well.

10 Bye-bye.11 MIKE CRUTE: Thank you.12 Folks, we are the Devil's Advocates. We're13 going to open the phones to your calls, (608) 321-0921.14 (End of Interview)1516171819202122232425

Page 13

1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N23456 I, Christine M. Aiello, transcriber, do hereby7 certify that the foregoing is a true and correct8 transcript from the electronic sound recordings of the9 proceedings in the above-captioned matter.

1011121314 March 24, 2016 <%Signature%>15 Christine M. Aiello16171819202122232425




123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

5 (Page 14)Capital Reporting - A Veritext Company



111 6:317-16 2:251800 1:181801 1:1819103 1:191957 3:17,21

220,000 9:3200,000 4:32011 5:182016 13:1424 13:1425 3:7

33/12/2014 1:12321-0921 2:11 12:13

440 9:3420 2:745 6:749 12:3

5500 9:1,255 6:4

660,000 10:9608 2:11 12:13655 7:12 8:24

7777-6690 1:197:00 6:2

8888 1:198:00 6:2

992.1 2:692.1. 5:13

aa.m. 6:2ability 8:25able 6:2,4 8:10

11:19

abraham 9:11abundantly 5:1abuse 11:6act 3:18 6:20 10:21activities 9:2address 3:14adequate 6:25advantage 8:12advocates 1:9 2:1,4

2:9,13 5:13 12:12affordability 10:21agree 10:10aiello 1:24 13:6,15alberta 11:21allow 7:23allowed 11:16amend 8:5american 10:7analysis 6:10anybody 3:9anymore 6:18appreciate 11:23appreciated 10:6appreciates 4:24areas 4:2,7 6:12argued 9:16asbestos 9:15assume 5:21 8:11

11:9,11atlantic 1:18aware 6:5awash 7:19

bb 4:5back 2:7,14,16 3:21

5:18 8:11 11:2backs 10:2bait 9:6began 3:12belief 7:6believe 5:23 9:9

11:18benefit 6:10better 10:17bill 7:12,15 8:8

10:11,17 11:17

bills 3:7,21 6:23break 2:8brought 8:8bye 12:10,10

cc 13:1,1calendar 10:22,25

11:2,3call 7:15calling 10:22calls 12:13campaign 7:14 8:7

8:9campaigns 7:20canal 12:5cancer 10:21 11:3

11:19candidates 7:14cap 9:2captioned 13:9careful 11:10cases 10:2cash 7:14certainly 8:4 10:11

11:6,16certify 13:7champion 3:17check 2:8chemotherapy

10:21choose 11:19christine 1:24 13:6

13:15city's 6:15claim 4:16clear 5:1 6:22 9:7

11:17clearly 9:8clerks 4:2,11colleagues 3:4 7:7come 3:15 11:18comment 7:1company 1:17conclusion 3:15confrontational

5:10

conservative 6:14constituents 7:4contained 8:24corporate 8:21correct 5:22,23 13:7cost 6:10,11counted 5:7country 10:14counts 4:25court 1:17 8:6cover 11:24create 12:8crute 2:7,17,21 3:24

5:12,24 7:10 8:219:14 10:18 11:2112:6,11

cut 5:18d

dale 1:10 2:13,14,243:5 4:5 5:14,14 8:219:3,14 10:18 11:2312:6

darling's 11:22day 6:4,8 8:24 12:8days 2:19deal 3:8dealt 8:9debate 3:25deciding 9:25defend 6:13,18defendants 9:19defending 9:6delay 9:20delighted 2:15,17demanding 7:22democrat 8:17demonstrating 7:9dems 11:1denigrate 8:1devil's 1:9 2:1,4,9

2:13 5:13 12:12die 9:21different 4:15,15differing 7:14disadvantage 4:9disclosure 7:22 8:3

8:6

[11 - disclosure] Page 1




discretion 11:8disproportionate

10:1district 4:11doing 3:22 4:10,10

4:24 5:5 6:1 12:3dollars 7:20donation 7:12double 2:10doyle 8:10dwight 3:22 9:11

ee 13:1early 3:2 5:19earmarked 4:3earth 3:9easier 3:20 5:6 7:19eisenhower 3:22

9:12elected 7:14election 4:22elections 3:8 4:15electronic 1:16 13:8embarrassed 6:19embarrassing 7:11encouraging 3:19energy 4:22enormous 11:9essentially 11:13everybody 5:2 9:7excuse 10:20expand 4:6explanation 6:13

ff 13:1face 10:11facebook 2:9fact 5:1 8:25failed 7:8fairly 5:25faith 3:13 4:21falling 10:2far 3:15field 4:1file 9:18financing 8:7,9

find 4:9 8:14fine 7:25first 3:6 8:8fitzgerald 3:25

10:21,25five 6:8fix 2:5folks 5:12 12:12follow 2:10foregoing 13:7form 3:20frankly 3:23fraud 3:11 5:3 7:6friend 2:12 6:18frustrated 11:25fundraising 9:2furthermore 6:23future 5:9

ggenerally 11:8generous 10:19

11:25give 7:13given 8:12go 8:14going 2:18 3:1,9 4:1

6:1,21 7:23 9:8,1812:13

good 7:3gop 5:18government 8:19governor 8:10grassroots 7:15great 9:24 12:8greater 7:22 8:3,6

10:5grothman 9:17guest 1:10 2:12guy 4:23

hharm 9:24heard 7:3 8:18hearing 10:23heart 10:8help 5:6 12:3helping 4:12

heritage 9:11heroes 10:2hope 12:9hot 7:7hour 6:3hours 4:6,17 6:4,7

iideas 4:21 5:8ignore 10:3illogical 4:17impossible 4:13,14improve 7:21improving 4:16 5:8impune 11:11including 5:19,20increase 9:3inflation 9:4insanity 7:22interview 1:12

12:14involved 10:7irregularities 3:11

7:6issue 8:17 9:25

jjob 4:13joined 2:11joins 5:14journal 5:16jump 9:14junkies 2:5justification 3:5

kkeep 4:2killed 11:13kind 10:10know 2:23 3:12 4:18

4:19 5:11,25 6:1,206:22 8:2,4 9:17,2510:6,10

knows 4:19l

lack 3:13land 4:18lawmakers 5:18

laws 8:12lawsuits 9:23leader 3:25 8:8

10:20 11:8leadership 3:21left 2:22legion 10:7legislation 2:25 3:3

4:4 7:12 9:15 11:311:22

legislative 10:22legislature 8:1legitimate 4:25limited 6:7lincoln 9:11line 2:11 5:17lines 2:23 5:4listeners 12:9listening 2:8 5:12litigation 9:18little 11:25lives 10:13lobby 7:25lobbyist 7:12,13lobbyists 7:20 8:22long 5:4 10:6looked 2:22looking 5:15lord 12:3lost 4:21lot 2:24love 12:4

mm 1:24 13:6,15majority 3:25 8:8

10:20making 3:20 4:13

4:13 5:10 7:19man 2:24maneuver 11:14march 13:14market 1:18marley 5:15 6:6massive 3:11 5:2 7:6matter 13:9mean 7:10

[discretion - mean] Page 2




mechanics 4:22 5:9medicine 11:20member 8:22members 11:12merits 9:16message 2:3 3:19mic 2:5 5:13mic92.1.com. 2:6mid 1:18middle 2:24mike 2:7,17,21 3:24

5:12,24 7:10 8:219:14 10:18 11:2112:6,11

miserably 7:8moderate 2:21money 4:5 7:19,23

9:1month 9:20morning's 11:2motives 11:11move 8:5moving 7:13mucking 5:9mythology 3:10

nn 13:1nation's 10:2national 1:17need 7:5 8:3,5needed 3:14needs 3:7 4:15 10:4never 4:18,18night 11:1noble 3:16note 8:24number 10:1,8

oo 13:1obstructionist 6:20obviously 11:24office 7:15offices 4:2oh 2:20open 4:3 6:11 12:13opportunities 6:16

opportunity 7:1opposed 3:3order 4:24organization 8:23

10:8organizations 10:9ought 5:1overwhelming 4:12

pp.m. 6:2pa 1:19packs 9:1paper 8:23parliamentary

11:14part 4:3 12:4,4participate 8:19parties 5:8partisan 2:23party 4:20,20 9:10passed 2:25 4:4 9:15patients 9:21 11:19patrick 5:15 6:6peel 8:10people 4:14 5:4,6

6:25 7:18,25 8:2,118:14,17 9:13,1910:12

perfect 10:16period 5:19periods 7:23philadelphia 1:19phone 2:10 5:14phones 12:13pieces 10:15pile 7:11pitching 5:7place 10:23places 4:15plain 7:2plaintiffs 9:24playing 4:1please 2:8 4:12plenty 7:18point 8:7points 5:16

policies 6:14 9:13political 2:5 4:20,20

5:8possible 9:19posted 1:12potential 9:23pour 7:24pouring 4:21power 11:9predicated 7:5president 3:22prior 3:25probably 8:4procedural 10:24procedurally 10:20proceedings 1:16

13:9process 3:13 7:24

11:6produced 1:16provision 8:25purple 10:8pursued 5:17pushed 10:21pushing 9:13 10:25

11:1,2put 4:5 7:20

qquestion 10:19quite 10:5quoted 8:23

rr 13:1radio 1:9 2:9,10

5:13raise 9:1raises 8:25read 6:1reagan 9:12real 4:10realize 10:18really 5:25 6:22

11:14reason 4:10reasonable 6:12reasons 7:3

recognition 10:1recognize 10:16recorded 1:16 2:3recording 1:16recordings 13:8reduce 4:6reducing 4:17reduction 3:2reform 10:15region 1:18regularly 4:11reporting 1:17 5:15

6:6represent 10:9republican 3:1 8:17

9:10 11:21republicans 3:22

5:17resolution 8:5retribution 9:9right 2:12 3:5 8:2,18

8:18rights 3:18risser 10:11ronald 9:12roosevelt 9:11root 12:5rules 11:16rural 4:1,2 6:12

ssad 3:23 4:20sausage 11:4saw 8:21saying 7:18 8:2 9:17sb 7:12 8:24schultz 2:13,15,20

3:6 4:8 5:14,23 6:177:10,17 9:5,22 11:511:23 12:2,6,8

scott 3:25second 5:17see 3:24 4:3,16 7:2

8:2 9:15 10:17seemingly 2:24seen 10:24 11:12senate 2:19 4:4 8:9

11:4

[mechanics - senate] Page 3




senator 1:10 2:132:15,20 3:6,25 4:85:14,23 6:17 7:107:17 9:5,16,2210:10 11:5,23 12:212:8

send 3:18sentiment 4:12sentiments 6:22sentinel 5:16serves 8:15service 1:16 10:13session 3:12 6:24shape 3:20shares 9:10short 6:12show 1:9 2:14 5:13

6:1,14shultz 1:10shut 6:15sick 8:14signal 9:7signature 13:14signed 8:4simply 9:4,20 10:22sir 2:18,21 3:2 7:16

11:4 12:1,7sit 6:13sites 5:10six 9:20slap 10:11somewhat 4:9sooner 7:21sort 10:24sound 1:16 13:8sounds 4:18span 6:8speaker 10:20speaking 11:10special 2:12spend 9:1spirit 3:17stall 9:20start 3:1 7:22state 2:19 4:6 5:2,3

5:13 8:9statement 10:5

stop 4:12 7:21straight 2:23street 1:18strongly 9:10 11:18struck 5:25studio 2:11suggest 10:4suggesting 7:4suite 1:18supposed 8:19suppress 5:11supreme 8:6sure 4:25suspect 12:1,4swiftly 6:23system 8:15 10:16

tt 13:1,1tactic 9:21take 8:12 10:23

11:19talk 1:9 4:10 7:11technique 11:7teddy 9:11tell 3:4 7:3 9:18thank 2:8 12:6,11thing 5:3things 4:17 5:8,24

7:21 8:3 10:17think 3:6,8 4:19

6:21,25 7:1 8:4,59:8,10,12,22,2410:5 11:15

thinking 3:12thought 8:11three 5:19,20 7:8time 5:17 6:5 7:23

8:10,16 10:19 11:2311:25 12:7

timeframe 7:13times 9:3 11:7tired 8:15today 4:4 6:6 10:22

11:3tort 10:15total 6:7

trail 7:7transcriber 1:24

13:6transcript 1:16 13:8transcription 1:16true 13:7try 5:25 6:20trying 3:18 5:11

6:15twitter 2:10two 2:19 5:20,21

uuh 2:20understand 6:9understands 4:23

9:8unfortunately 8:22unusual 11:15

vveritext 1:17veterans 10:3,9vital 10:13vote 4:25,25 5:4,11

6:2 11:18voted 9:6 10:14

11:22voter 5:2votes 5:6voting 3:1,2,8,11,13

3:18,19,20 4:6 5:105:19 6:7,16 11:12

wwaiting 9:21walker 5:18want 5:4 11:9,10,12

11:17war 10:3watching 2:18way 3:20 8:12 11:4

11:13we've 3:7week 6:4weekend 5:20weekends 5:20,22weeks 5:19,20,21

weigh 6:22welcome 2:14whatsoever 7:17willing 6:18window 6:3wisconsin 2:19workday 10:23world 2:22worry 9:23wra 8:22wrangling 10:24wrong 7:2

yyear 5:18years 7:8 10:13 12:3yesterday 11:1

[senator - yesterday] Page 4



Exhibit 2


Exhibit 3


Exhibit 4


Exhibit 5


Capital Reporting Company

1

1250 Eye Street NW, Ste. 350 Washington D.C. 20005

202-803-8850

1

2

CONGRESSMAN GLEN GROTHMAN 3

STATEMENT TO TMJ4 4/5/2016 4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Interview Conducted by: 11

Charles Benson, Reporter 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22



2


202-803-8850

P R O C E E D I N G S 1

THE REPORTER: Take me forward to November. 2

You know that a lot of Republicans, since 1984, in the 3

Presidential races have not been able to win in 4

Wisconsin. Why would it be any different for a 5

Ted Cruz or a Donald Trump? 6

CONGRESSMAN GROTHMAN: Well, I think Hillary 7

Clinton is about the weakest candidate the Democrats 8

have ever put up and now we have photo ID, and I think 9

photo ID is going to make a little bit of a difference 10

as well. 11

THE REPORTER: But if Ted Cruz is the guy, 12

what will his message be to try to win in Wisconsin if 13

he's up against Hilary Clinton, or can you imagine a 14

scenario that he's up against Bernie Sanders? 15

CONGRESSMAN GROTHMAN: I think either way, 16

it's the same message he uses to win the primaries; 17

you know, welfare, government spending, and 18

immigration. 19

THE REPORTER: All right. Congressman 20

Grothman, we really appreciate your time, your -- 21

CONGRESSMAN GROTHMAN: Thank you. 22



3


202-803-8850

THE REPORTER: -- insight on this particular 1

race. 2

(Whereupon, the foregoing interview of 3

CONGRESSMAN GLENN GROTHMAN was concluded.) 4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22



4


202-803-8850

CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER 1

2

I, LUCY T. TURNBULL, do hereby certify that this 3

transcript was prepared from audio to the best of my 4

ability. 5

6

I am neither counsel for, related to, nor 7

employed by any of the parties to this action, nor 8

financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of 9

this action. 10

11

April 13, 2016 _________________________ 12

LUCY T. TURNBULL, CET-743 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22


General Information

Court United States District Court for the Western District ofWisconsin; United States District Court for the Western Districtof Wisconsin

Federal Nature of Suit Civil Rights - Voting[441]

Docket Number 3:15-cv-00324

One Wisconsin Institute, Inc. et al v. Nichol, Gerald et al, Docket No. 3:15-cv-00324 (W.D. Wis. May 29, 2015), Court Docket

© 2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 41

http://www.bna.com/terms-of-service-subscription-products

Multiple Documents - Ohio State University · , No. 12-C-212, 2015 WL 5673016, at *3 n.2 (E.D. Wis....

Documents

Transcript of Multiple Documents - Ohio State University · , No. 12-C-212, 2015 WL 5673016, at *3 n.2 (E.D. Wis....