You might not have heard as much about Wisconsin's attorney general’s race as you have about the U.S. Senate or gubernatorial races, but there are big stakes here too. The attorney general is the top authority for enforcing state laws, and they have a lot of discretion when it comes to choosing which cases and issues they prioritize. The winner will shape how the state prosecutes cases related to everything from public safety abortion to the environment.
Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul is vying for his second term. He joins Lake Effect to talk about his policy positions as well as his hopes for a second term.
Kaul is running against Republican Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney. WUWM also reached out to Toney through several emails and phone calls and he did not agree to an interview by our deadline.
>> A non-interview with Wisconsin attorney general candidate DA Eric Toney
The below conversation with Kaul has been edited for clarity.
WUWM REPORTER LINA TRAN: Just to start, can you tell us about what you're proud of in your first term and why should voters choose you for a second?
ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH KAUL: Absolutely. Well, public safety has been my top priority as attorney general and it will always be my top priority as attorney general. And you know, I'm a former federal prosecutor and I'm really proud of the work that DOJ has done investigating and prosecuting some of the most serious crimes in the State of Wisconsin during my time as attorney general. You know, we get called in when there are really challenging cases, and so we have worked on cases involving homicides where the victim's body couldn't be found and gotten convictions. We've worked on cases involving serial rapists and whether it's drug traffickers, or sex offenders or other serious crimes, we have put people who've committed those serious crimes behind bars and kept them there. Now when I ran for office in 2018, I talked about a number of issues. And I'm really proud that on issue after issue that we talked about in 2018, we have delivered results for Wisconsinites. So, we got Wisconsin out of a lawsuit that was seeking to end the Affordable Care Act. We also worked to reform our sexual assault kit laws and got legislation passed that will help prevent a future backlog. And we launched a sexual assault kit tracking system. We've also made our schools safer, including by launching the Speak Up, Speak Out program — a tip line that anybody associated with a school can contact with school safety concerns. We've worked to hold big pharma accountable for its role in the opioid epidemic and help secure over $400 million that's going to go to communities across the State of Wisconsin to help fight the epidemic. And we've strengthened our protection of clean air and clean water in Wisconsin, including by filing suit against PFAS manufacturers and marketers. It's so critical that we clean those toxic, cancer-causing chemicals out of our water that it's the companies that made millions of dollars that are paying to clean it up and not Wisconsin taxpayers.
TRAN: So, you start out by saying that your top priority is public safety and your opponent has said the same. Why do you think that yours is the right approach to defending the public?
KAUL: Well, I think, whether you look at our experience, our track record or our values, there are clear differences, and the approach that I have laid out is a strong one for public safety in Wisconsin. As I mentioned, I was a federal prosecutor in one of the most dangerous cities in the country. I prosecuted murderers, gang members and drug traffickers. And as attorney general for almost four years now, I've overseen an agency that's nearly 50 times larger than the Fond du Lac County DA’s office which Mr. Toney has been overseeing. And as I mentioned, we've worked on the most serious types of offenses around the state. Our track records are also different. I'm proud of the record I've just been talking about. Mr. Toney on the other hand, in his office over a six-year period, only 20% of the cases that were charged as felony domestic abuse cases resulted in a felony conviction. So, four out of five of those cases did not result in a felony conviction. In another case, his office handled the case involving somebody who had been convicted of nine felonies, but his office overlooked the vast majority of that person's criminal history. He was released on $500 bail and less than two weeks later, he tragically killed a firefighter. We can't have those types of mistakes magnified nearly 50 times at the Wisconsin Department of Justice. And then last, I have proposed some concrete plans to make our communities safer. My opponent hasn't. I put out a safer Wisconsin plan almost a year ago, which called for a $115 million investment in public safety. I've also called for common sense gun safety legislation like universal background checks. My opponent has offered no serious proposals for funding law enforcement. He's been opposed to common sense gun safety measures. You know, as one example for funding, I've talked about increasing shared revenue. I would like to see an increase in the dollars that go from the state to local governments, which play a critical role in ensuring that local law enforcement has the funds that it needs. My opponent has not committed to supporting an increase in shared revenue. So, the differences are very clear when it comes to public safety.
TRAN: You said that you would not prosecute violations of the state's 1849 abortion ban. Can you tell us more about where you are on reproductive rights?
KAUL: You know, we have begun to hear some of the really tragic stories that people knew were going to happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned. You know, in Ohio, there was a 10-year-old rape victim who had to travel to a different state, to Indiana to get reproductive health care. In Wisconsin, a woman was left to bleed for 10 days after a partial miscarriage, before a doctor believed that the medical care that was needed could be provided. There have been devastating consequences already and we're going to see more and more of them over time because of this draconian1849 abortion ban that we have on the books in Wisconsin that has no exceptions for cases involving rape or incest, or even to protect the health of the mother except where it's necessary to save the life of the mother. I have been clear that enforcing that law would be a serious misuse of Wisconsin DOJ resources. Currently, those resources go to investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes and we shouldn't be diverting them from that to going to put people behind bars for abortions. Now, there's a clear difference in the AG's race on that issue. My opponent has repeatedly pledged to enforce that ban, which means again, shifting resources away from fighting crime. He also hasn't even ruled out enforcing it in cases involving rape or incest. And, just recently, he called for having DAs prosecute abortion cases in neighboring counties. There is only one type of case that he suggested that for, and it's abortion prosecutions. That really shows where his priorities lie, and they're the wrong priorities for Wisconsin.
TRAN: Are there other laws that the Legislature might pass that you might say, “No, I'm not going to use state resources to defend that?"
KAUL: Well, at the Department of Justice, we're tasked with investigating crimes of statewide importance. That's what the statutory authority is for our investigations. So, we regularly make decisions about how to use our resources most effectively. And the approach that I take is investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes in the state. That's what I see our role as being, and I think it's critical that as our AG is making decisions about how to use limited resources that, that's how those resources get assigned. And so, what I can say confidently is that there will never be a case where enforcement of the abortion ban would be an appropriate use of those limited resources. You know every investigating and prosecuting agency has to decide how to use their resource, so to me, focusing on the most serious crimes is the way to do it.
TRAN: In terms of these kind of big scale crimes, you've sued corporations for PFAS contamination, CAFOs regulations. What influences whether you take a case that has to do with environmental regulation?
Kaul: We take a similar approach on environmental enforcement to the one I've been describing for criminal investigation and prosecution. The DNR handles most routine environmental violations, and in those types of cases, the state Department of Justice doesn't need to get involved and doesn't have the resources to get involved. The cases that come to DOJ are the ones that are the most egregious and that's based on the assessment of both DNR staff as well as our environmental protection enforcers at DOJ. So, those tend to be cases where there's very significant violations that have substantial harm or when you see repeat or flagrant violations happening. So, just recently we announced a proposed settlement with a company called CLCM, which had barrels that contained hazardous materials, there was pollution that impacted people nearby. And we have a proposed settlement we're hoping the Joint Finance Committee will approve. We also filed suit in a case in Marinette involving PFAS contamination in the Marinette area where there was there's been substantial contamination in the water. But those kinds of significant cases where the harm is serious or where there have been a lot of violations that's where those resources should be used.
TRAN: In terms of climate change and climate-related cases, can voters expect you to get involved with things regarding reining in greenhouse gas emissions?
KAUL: First, climate change is a crisis, and we need to make sure that we are addressing it and protecting the kind of future for our kids that we want them to have. So at the Department of Justice, in addition to protecting clean water, we've also worked on air pollution cases and work to protect clean air. Now, a key role in fighting climate change, because of the scale of the issue, has to be played by the federal government. And during the Trump administration, when there were efforts to rollback critical protections to the climate that were also changes that were made without going through the proper legal process, we were involved in challenges to some of those policies and help prevent some of those rollbacks from happening and protected our climate by doing that. With the Biden administration, they've obviously taken a different position on climate change than the Trump administration had. So, on environmental issues with the Biden administration, our involvement has usually been to, when we weigh in to, make suggestions about changes that could be made to rules or other policies that they've proposed. And we continue to plan to take a similar approach as we move forward.
TRAN: Thinking about the wider national stage, what kinds of cases might voters expect you to get Wisconsin involved with?
KAUL: With the types of multistate cases we've gotten involved with are ones where both there is a strong legal basis for bringing a challenge, as well as a harm to the interests of the State of Wisconsin. So, those are the two factors I look at in deciding when to get the state involved in a legal challenge. And, you know, that has led us to be involved in a number of different challenges. We also get involved in multistate investigations involving consumer protection matters. But you know that's an area where an AG's views on what is a benefit to the State of Wisconsin or what’s harmful to the State of Wisconsin might impact how they approach things. So, an example of that is the Affordable Care Act litigation. My predecessor was one of the leaders of the lawsuit that was trying to end the Affordable Care Act. I thought both that, that lawsuit was weak on the merits and also that it was bad for Wisconsin because it would have ended protections for people with pre-existing condition and also meant that more Wisconsinites would go without health insurance coverage. So, I withdrew Wisconsin from that lawsuit, but that's an example of the type of case you could see different AGs potentially choosing to get involved with or to withdraw from as I did in that case.
TRAN: And in recent years, there have been battles over absentee ballots, voter registrations, election outcomes. Can you share where you stand on voting in elections?
KAUL: I'm really proud of my track record of protecting our democracy in Wisconsin, and it's a clear differentiator in the AG's race. Prior to the 2020 presidential election, there were efforts to deactivate tens of thousands of voters from the voter rolls. My administration defended the Wisconsin Election Commission. I personally argued that case in the state Supreme Court and we won five to two, keeping voters on the rolls. When the postal service tried to slow down the mail prior to that election, we joined with other states to challenged that and got an order blocking those cutbacks from happening. I stood up against the Michael Gableman investigation and called for it to be shutdown, as well as challenging subpoenas that we alleged were unlawful that Mr. Gableman had issued. And then after the 2020 election when Donald Trump and his allies tried to overturn the results of the election, we successfully defended those cases in court and won every single one. Now, my opponent has made clear that he's got a different approach on these issues. He supported the Gableman investigation, which wasted more than a million dollars of taxpayer money. He recently appeared with him at a fundraiser. He also has claimed that several of our election commissioners committed crimes and should be removed from office. That's a bipartisan group of election commissioners he's talking about. And he supported things like the ending of the use of ballot drop boxes and the U.S. Supreme Court's the adoption of the extreme partisan gerrymander after the U.S. Supreme Court had rejected the earlier maps that had been considered. So there's, there's a really stark difference when it comes to protecting the freedom to vote.
TRAN: Is there anything that you'd like to do better or more of in the next term if you're reelected?
KAUL: Well, we're going to keep fighting to get additional resources to support public safety, including local law enforcement across the State of Wisconsin. There has been real progress made there in the last four years on that front. There were about 70 additional assistant DA positions created around the state. There's been additional funding provided for law enforcement training. But we've had underfunding of our criminal justice system in Wisconsin for decades. And you know, shared revenue, which helps fund local government, has dropped while we've seen an increase in costs. We've got to address that by increasing shared revenue and making the kinds of investments that I've talked about in my Safe Wisconsin plan, as well as my crimefighting budget. We can help ensure that law enforcement officers have the resources they need, and we also can invest in things like victim services; officer recruitment, retention and wellness; crime prevention efforts; mental health crisis response and other types of programs that can make our communities safer. We've got an enormous state budget surplus and investing a portion of those funds in safer communities, I think, is exactly the kind of investment we should be making.
Wisconsin's midterm elections are Tuesday, November 8, 2022. If you have a question about voting or the races, submit it below or check out WUWM's voter guide.
_
