Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects proposed campaign donor recusal rules (UPDATE)

Listen to this article

MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s conservative majority threw out a petition that would have barred the state’s judges from hearing cases involving the largest donors to their election campaigns.

The court voted 5-2 on Thursday morning to reject a rule change suggested by 54 retired Wisconsin judges and favored by several liberal groups and persons. Supporters had argued it was necessary to protect the court’s integrity. The petition garnered dozens of comments, including 63 emails from private citizens.

The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a Germantown resident and 11 retired judges opposed the change. WILL and the 11 retired judges contended that the petition would infringe on the First Amendment right to exercise free speech using campaign contributions.

The motion to dismiss the proposal was brought by Justice Annette Ziegler.

“For me, the issue is the law,” she said. “As a judge I have taken an oath to uphold the constitution of the United State and Wisconsin, and it’s my obligation to do just that. The petitioners have asked us to do something that just does not comport to the constitution as I view it.”

Ziegler’s motion was seconded by her fellow conservative justice, Rebecca Bradley, who agreed with Ziegler’s reasoning but also slammed the proposed rule change. Bradley said the state’s judiciary should be offended by the proposal because it presumes that the 272 judges and justices in Wisconsin cannot be relied on to uphold their duties or the law and make just, fair and impartial decisions.

She said judges who fail to uphold those duties will ultimately have to answer to voters.

“That judge will answer to the people of Wisconsin on election day, and that’s the beauty of an elected judiciary,” said Rebecca Bradley.

The vote came after two failed motions from the two liberal justices on court: Ann Walsh Bradley and Shirley Abrahamson. When Chief Justice Pat Roggensack called the petition, Abrahamson quickly called for the court to solicit comments from the public and schedule a public hearing. Her motion was seconded by Ann Walsh Bradley.

After that proposal failed, Ann Walsh Bradley called for the petition to be adopted as written without a public hearing. That motion, seconded by Abrahamson, also failed.

Retired Dane County Circuit Court Judge Sarah O’Brien, one of the 54 judges who filed the petition, said Thursday that she had expected the justices to toss the proposal.

Democratic lawmakers who are also attorneys, including state Reps. Dana Wachs, D-Eau Claire, slammed the justices’ decision Thursday afternoon, noting that they introduced in March six bills proposing many of the changes the 54 judges had proposed.

“As attorneys we subscribe to the cannons of ethics,” Hebl said. “We’re supposed to be wary of even the appearance of impropriety, so we’re very disappointed that the Supreme Court has summarily dismissed this petition.”

Thursday’s discussion did not wrap up without some tension first arising among the justices. At one point, Justice Michael Gableman called out Abrahamson for receiving, during her 2009 bid for a seat on the high court, thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the lawyers in a case that was pending before the court .

In response, Abrahamson said Thursday that she had looked into that allegation and returned the money.

In other business, the justices voted to take up a petition to tweak the judicial education rules for municipal judges and tackle a proposal to bring the state’s class action rule up to date so that it mirrors federal law.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.