[EL] Wisconsin judiciary

Sat Mar 14 07:10:25 PDT 2020

>From the links provided, these are the relevant direct quotes:

"As far as Dan Kelly is concerned, that he has a track record. His
decisions over and over again are in favor of those groups and those people
who got him on the Supreme Court in the first place. Every single time he
has decided in their favor, and I just find it remarkable that the law
could every single time be on the side of people who want Dan Kelly on the
bench. That's impossible and that feels like corruption to the people of
Wisconsin."

“What voters see is that you get support from special interests. You ignore
the rule of law and you find in favor of those special interests over and
over and over again, and that feels like corruption to people in the state
of Wisconsin.”

When 54 retired judges used the rulemaking process to ask the court to
revisit its donor recusal rules, incumbent justices called the petition
"offensive" and refused to hold a public hearing. As a result, the only
means of accountability for the court's recusal rules and practices
involving wealthy donors is through judicial elections. But when a judicial
candidate attempts to make this an election issue, the incumbent justices
call it "insulting" and publicly criticize that candidate.

There are legitimate arguments about whether judges should be elected at
all, but if judges are going to be elected, then accountability around
donor recusal is a legitimate part of the campaign discussion.

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 5:21 PM Smith, Bradley <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
wrote:

> Are there any examples of Karofsky actually calling Justice Kelly
> "corrupt?"
>
>
> https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/wisconsin/articles/2019-11-19/wisconsin-supreme-court-candidates-set-for-first-debate
>
> https://apnews.com/cd345a9a6096488381b3bc69762085f4
>
>
> https://www.wuwm.com/post/judge-jill-karofsky-wants-end-corruption-if-elected-wisconsin-supreme-court#stream/0
>
>
> https://kwwl.com/2019/11/19/the-latest-karofsky-goes-after-kelly-in-first-court-debate/
>
> I suppose it is true she merely stated that others think he is corrupt. To
> repeat Rick's question, do you think that makes it better? I'm inclined to
> think it makes it worse--accusations by innuendo always bother more than
> someone who comes straight out with it. The press seemed to get the drift
> of her comments if the stories above are any indication.
>
>
> *Bradley A. Smith*
>
> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault*
>
> *   Professor of Law*
>
> *Capital University Law School*
>
> *303 E. Broad St.*
>
> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>
> *614.236.6317*
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
> ------------------------------
> *From:* brendan fischer [brendan.fischer at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 13, 2020 3:16 PM
> *To:* Smith, Bradley
> *Cc:* Rick Hasen; Election Law Listserv
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Wisconsin judiciary
>
> Are there any examples of Karofsky actually calling Justice Kelly
> "corrupt?" What I believe she has said is that Kelly and other justices
> consistently decline to recuse from cases involving their biggest election
> supporters, and consistently side with the interests that spent millions
> getting them elected to the bench, which contributes to the appearance of
> corruption and undermines the public's confidence in the Wisconsin Supreme
> Court.
>
> The background is that Wisconsin has some of the weakest judicial recusal
> rules
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.americanprogress.org%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2014%2f05%2fJudicialRecusal.pdf&c=E,1,c9CixhKazRnDTGXlc9UXlxmN1vfsPzYNxoHNoWDwoOeSscT3SNJ7WeOgyxOXjnpkqOlXVpMTUw4YvhStNADxi6qmw_raYdspqpDf527QKoK2TjCZ7ENF2WB2TVE,&typo=1>
> in the country when it comes to cases involving big donors and spenders.
> These weak rules have become an issue this election cycle, but the problem
> has been percolating
> <https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-destruction-of-the-wisconsin-supreme-court>for
> years
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwislawjournal.com%2f2015%2f09%2f02%2fclosing-arguments-should-two-justices-have-recused-themselves-in-john-doe-case%2f&c=E,1,ryY7vMJN8WDumg_8VzW1xOXGnPqMBq_jv3gaJWsg8QSkP-GKinHJTfAZ-BAgaJaqE0WW9v77Y_olXtc0NhuEl2yWjBCKk4AO84fPK-YbJnBpgxyi&typo=1>;
> in 2017, for example, 54 retired judges petitioned
> <https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2017/01/11/former-judges-seek-rules-donations/96430238/>the
> Wisconsin Supreme Court to amend the rules regarding justices hearing cases
> involving their biggest campaign supporters, but the conservative
> majority--including Justice Kelly and Justice Rebecca Bradley, who signed
> yesterday's statement--refused to revisit the court's non-recusal rules
> <https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/20/wisconsin-supreme-court-weighs-recusal-rules-when-campaign-donors-litigants/100644698/>.
> (Justice Bradley said this about the petition from the retired judges:
> "Every judge and justice in Wisconsin should be highly offended by this
> petition because it attacks their integrity.") See Campaign Legal Center's
> comments on the petition here
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwicourts.gov%2fsupreme%2fdocs%2f1701commentsfischer.pdf&c=E,1,GfjjGtfqQwnOcS2acnFFkzNGyx-7Tg4Gg2VQyCnoWuj9cDcsFC-QQmQtWK0DVWd_e7hEitfXJHtJhrb4Jrp2ZfKImJZ3dT9FFm3FqFCrJLA,&typo=1>.
>
>
> For further background, read this 2018 Wisconsin Lawyer article from me
> and Nick Harken:
>
> https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=91&Issue=2&ArticleID=26152
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.wisbar.org%2fNewsPublications%2fWisconsinLawyer%2fPages%2fArticle.aspx%3fVolume%3d91%26Issue%3d2%26ArticleID%3d26152&c=E,1,7xkMFCAgio7HJwOiLdJXEe-qFUN5aJ3BwmgoTNjDaQkbAWrHi7RTM8Joa863A2cgh84HuJx1p6GfXeuiv5MaDXJPn4FakUgMu51qDkZ995x0P8jYWRQp2WUk&typo=1>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 2:27 PM Smith, Bradley <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Worse for the challenger, better for the court (which is not to say ideal
>> or good), more accurate for everyone.
>>
>> *Bradley A. Smith*
>>
>> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault*
>>
>> *   Professor of Law*
>>
>> *Capital University Law School*
>>
>> *303 E. Broad St.*
>>
>> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>>
>> *614.236.6317*
>>
>> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
>> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu]
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 13, 2020 1:24 PM
>> *To:* Smith, Bradley; Election Law Listserv
>> *Subject:* Re: Wisconsin judiciary
>>
>> Do you think that makes it any better?
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *"Smith, Bradley" <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
>> *Date: *Friday, March 13, 2020 at 10:12 AM
>> *To: *Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>, Election Law Listserv <
>> law-election at uci.edu>
>> *Subject: *Wisconsin judiciary
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, actually they criticized her for calling her opponent "corrupt" and
>> suggesting that he was getting paid off by "right wing special interests."
>>
>>
>>
>> *Bradley A. Smith*
>>
>> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault*
>>
>> *   Professor of Law*
>>
>> *Capital University Law School*
>>
>> *303 E. Broad St.*
>>
>> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>>
>> *614.236.6317*
>>
>> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
>> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Law-election [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on
>> behalf of Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu]
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 13, 2020 11:18 AM
>> *To:* Election Law Listserv
>> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/13/20
>>
>>    ** [ This email originated outside of Capital University ] **
>>   Sitting Conservative Justices on Wisconsin Supreme Court Publicly
>> Criticize Liberal Candidate for Court Who Is Running Against Conservative
>> Colleague for Saying Justice “Sides with Right Wing Special Interests”
>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d109976&c=E,1,8WS-QuaT6fs2hmBewlZ_bxwXcgRHyLrOr01ZctM5Egj5etXyPdqTPFR3oRTq8tuQbAwuvg2DyBOixigIrP3dtvcqV2v5mBtVpBccSeWKEH1HgF0f&typo=1>
>>
>> Posted on March 13, 2020 7:59 am
>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d109976&c=E,1,-kmLjfSAjdajS2fKTu8wxhIBLfYIyMEXVYNFPRoZq4qYfGyRIJDAZ7p4lsBTED754w9uFH3fm0mI0WEsL4yl4K55y5ctZAPhFYKjE1Be3CUAaD4,&typo=1>
>>  by *Rick Hasen*
>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,mc1uje9k-zzWb3CsmUOr3lNF0tDP01fiir6yRViguZG_TEQQmd-UJp4YTtaSfF6xJM9sOwUG9U81tdCJiL2tgmBLueAHLs5dVFgZf8dGboiVpPsv1w5Yzgs,&typo=1>
>>
>> I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like this
>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fmadison.com%2fwsj%2fnews%2flocal%2fgovt-and-politics%2fconservative-wisconsin-supreme-court-justices-lash-out-against-candidate-jill%2farticle_caa520aa-a9e6-50d0-8593-c01729a8f978.html&c=E,1,MkhvrOtVgtIW7aTjO7heRiG4zj_LVrarAor74zQ01r44uhIsFIuX3whqABE8-HN0mPAS9MDZ9LrL980Ybaa2k9Y7M4Xob-jlJxZigN69DcVI&typo=1>
>> .
>>
>> [image: Share]
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109976&title=Sitting%20Conservative%20Justices%20on%20Wisconsin%20Supreme%20Court%20Publicly%20Criticize%20Liberal%20Candidate%20for%20Court%20Who%20Is%20Running%20Against%20Conservative%20Colleague%20for%20Saying%20Justice%20%E2%80%9CSides%20with%20Right%20Wing%20Special%20Interests%E2%80%9D>
>>
>> Posted in judicial elections
>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d19&c=E,1,Mdnu1634tt9rtEqbHu71wfT9kXRjuQ-1DN4GnczzBTF3NGpag8bQ0VkQ2xPfyhBdENVOvCQeC8xRHH2cztGTC2ZmFKPI-pgg8QiUYsJkXGS6eztBtA,,&typo=1>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election&c=E,1,OkyGl4_bJ__TFGdmt17C_0gEQ6whLTJ9Ln3dIo5eSYuOaAK_rZj9w9OzAoZVQ-QZVm1wUzFOeGDuu5GjOVZxrZ75l57SBaix-1frVTnNGULP&typo=1>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200314/25f33d20/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2022 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200314/25f33d20/attachment.png>