I'm actually in the middle of writing an article on
state court procedures for election contests, so I can speak to
this.
Wisconsin does not have a specific provision for contesting
judicial elections, so its general election contest statute
would apply. The election contest provisions are embedded
within the recount provisions, at Wisc. Code sec. 9.01 (starting
with subsection (6)).
Specifically, the losing candidate must file a petition in
the circuit court (Wisconsin's trial court) within 5 days of the
completion of a recount. Because this is a statewide election,
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court selects which judicial
district shall hear the case. The circuit court Judge hears the
case without a jury.
The losing party at the circuit court can appeal to
Wisconsin's 4th District Court of Appeals within 30 days. The
statute does not state whether review is available in the
Wisconsin Supreme Court; I would imagine that the normal
procedures would apply.
The statute does provide that "This section constitutes the exclusive
judicial remedy for testing the
right to hold an elective office as the result of an alleged
irregularity,
defect or mistake committed during the voting or canvassing
process."
Every state is pretty different with respect to contests of
judicial elections. Some use the legislature; others use the
judiciary. West Virginia uses a special court comprised of one
person that the contestee selects, a second person that the
contestant chooses, and a third person that the governor
appoints.
As to Adam's specific question, Idaho and Missouri ask their
Supreme Courts to resolve an election contest for that same
court, but my research has not revealed instances when those
procedures have been invoked.
Josh
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Bonin,
Adam C.
<ABonin@cozen.com>
wrote:
Doomsday question: suppose these election results are
contested in the courts. Is the entire Wisconsin Supreme
Court conflicted out of handling this? Has there ever been
an election dispute rising to the highest court of a state
involving election to that court?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: To comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, we
inform you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S.
federal tax advice contained in this e-mail, including
attachments, is not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding
any penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue
Service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: This communication, including attachments, may
contain information that is confidential and protected by
the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes
non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the
designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this
communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or
agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that
you have received this communication in error, please notify
the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete
this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving
them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination,
distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including
attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by
anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver
of any attorney/client or other privilege.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
on behalf of Rick Hasen
Sent: Tue 4/5/2011 11:11 PM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] nailbiter in Wisconsin Supreme Court race
Election Home <http://elections.todaystmj4.com/L01F001.htm>
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
--
Joshua A. Douglas
Assistant Professor of Law
University of Kentucky College of Law
620 S. Limestone
Lexington, KY 40506