Past, Present and Future

Listen to this article

Passing the Torch: Justice Jon P. Wilcox and Justice-elect Annette K. Ziegler reflect on the state Supreme Court during the State Bar Convention in Milwaukee. WLJ Photo by Jack Zemlicka

An informal passing of the torch took place at the Wisconsin State Bar Convention on May 10 as outgoing Supreme Court Justice Jon P. Wilcox and Justice-elect Annette K. Ziegler shared the stage during an afternoon session.

Wilcox reminisced about his 15 years of service on the Supreme Court and 35 years of public service, while Ziegler expressed gratitude for the opportunity to uphold the standards of her predecessor.

“I wish Justice Wilcox were staying because I think I could learn a lot from him,” said Ziegler, who will succeed Wilcox on Aug. 1. “He will be missed, I’m sure, by his colleagues and the people he has served.”

Though the tone of the session was light, with Wilcox offering anecdotes on fellow justices Shirley S. Abrahamson and N. Patrick Crooks, who were both in attendance, the panelists also addressed prominent issues facing the court.

Specifically, they discussed whether there is a need for judicial election reform in light of the spring campaigns and the complications involved with opening Supreme Court case deliberations.

“I went through a very difficult judicial election, just like the chief justice and all of us and I have some concerns about that and how that issue is being handled,” said Wilcox, who was appointed to the high court in 1992, then was elected in 1997. “I’ve always been for an elected judiciary, but I’m kind of re-thinking that.”

Wilcox noted that he has talked with judicial members in other states which have a retention system for their judiciary.

“As an institution, the Supreme Court is an independent third branch of government, and it’s also a non-partisan group,” said Wilcox. “It also has to retain and serve the people’s confidence. It’s tough right now, but also has nothing to do with anybody in this room.”

Ziegler’s electoral trials and tribulations have been well-documented and were partially the genesis of discussion concerning campaign reform. Several bills have been drafted and circulated throughout the Legislature, including Senate Bill 171, known as the Impartial Justice Bill and Senate Bill 77.

S.B. 77, which among other things would require third-party special-interest groups that run “issue ads” within 60 days of an election to disclose financing, passed through the Senate, 26-7, on May 9 and moved to the Assembly for discussion.

While supportive of analyzing current election standards, Ziegler was concerned that any legislation might infringe on First Amendment rights.

“It is a good time to take a look at meaningful campaign finance,” said Ziegler, who cringed when the topic was brought up. “I would also add that you are always going to have the fact that people have First Amendment rights and you are going to have other parties and other interest groups, who I think put their hand in motion in campaigns, so it will be difficult to have any meaningful significant control of that.”

Control was also at issue when the topic of an open Supreme Court came up, courtesy of Wisconsin State Bar President Steven. A. Levine.

A supporter of enhancing public access to the justices’ deliberations, Levine asked Ziegler to keep an open mind with regard to the concept.

“The court is made up of public officials conducting public business; there are some people who think the conferences would be better and the public would be better educated if we were able to see what the justices do,” said Levine.

Ziegler said she would consider the possibility, but noted the expected difference between performing judicial duties on the circuit court level, compared to the Supreme Court level.

“There isn’t a lot to hide at the trial court level, nor is there a lot to worry about because you are not sitting there talking through opinions and decisions,” said Ziegler. “I’d hate to see a situation where someone was afraid to change their view if they’d invested in it during the opening of their discussion and then didn’t want to look like they changed their mind and have open access deterred.”

The response prompted Wilcox to further the sentiment in that he suggested justices were afforded the luxury of closed-door discussions, which ultimately helped bolster confidence in the court.

“When you’re talking amongst yourselves in your debate and formulating your opinion and later on, as it happens so often, you change your mind or you didn’t see something, or you didn’t have this in front of you,” said Wilcox. “My concern is how would that ever be recorded and would we ever handle this change and that’s why the court really doesn’t have a solid opinion until it’s actually mandated.

“We write against each other, we argue against each other and I think it’s a privilege that we have the opportunity to change our mind.”

Wilcox, 71, said he had regrets about leaving the Supreme Court at this point, but that another 10-year term would have difficult.

“That would have taken me to 81 and there are still a few things I’d like to do yet,” said Wilcox, who plans to remain active in the State Bar, but does not anticipate practicing law and stated that he had been offered a position on the State Historical Society Board of Directors.

“I’d certainly like to do some type of public service, but also want to do some traveling and spend time on my fa
rm in Waushara,” said Wilcox. “I’m also keeping my place in Madison, along with my football and basketball tickets.”