Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Brian Hagedorn

Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate gets help from Republicans

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A conservative-backed incumbent Wisconsin Supreme Court justice running for re-election is renting space from the state Republican Party and getting help from the GOP in circulating his nomination papers, in the latest signs of how partisan the races have become in recent years.

Justice Dan Kelly’s close relationship with Republicans was reported by the Wisconsin State Journal on Thursday. Both of Kelly’s opponents, Dane County Circuit Judge Jill Karofsky and Marquette University law professor Ed Fallone, are backed by liberals. But the Democratic Party is not helping either of them circulate papers or renting office space to them.

There is nothing illegal about the state GOP assisting Kelly and the party has been involved in past Supreme Court campaigns. It, for instance, has helped conservative candidates gather signatures required to get on the ballot. Democrats and liberal groups have also long supported candidates in the races, which are nonpartisan in name only.

Both Karofsky and Fallone spoke at the state Democratic Party convention earlier this year. Brian Hagedorn, a conservative elected to the court in April, spoke at the Republican convention.

The Supreme Court now has a 5-2 conservative majority.

State Supreme Court raises questions about law allowing searches without consent

A Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling left some judges with questions about a law allowing law-enforcement officials to search people on probation, parole or extended supervision without obtaining consent or a warrant.

The justices ruled Friday in a case questioning a search a Racine police officer had conducted under the authority of Wisconsin Act 79. The 2013 law allows law-enforcement official to search someone on probation, parole or extended supervision without first obtaining consent or a warrant if the officer suspects the person is committing a crime, or  is about to commit one or has committed one.

In 2015, the officer Michael Seeger searched Roy Anderson after seeing him take notice of Anderson’s squad care and then ride a bike on a sidewalk and put his hands in his pockets. Court documents say Seeger found on Anderson two bags of crack cocaine, more than $200 in cash and two cell phones. The state charged Anderson with possession of cocaine.

Anderson argued Seeger hadn’t known he was on supervision when he carried out the search, and even if Seeger had, that Seeger had no reasonable suspicion that Anderson was involved in a crime. Seeger said he had been familiar with Anderson’s case since he’d arrested him in 2012 for selling narcotics. He said he had received two anonymous tips about Anderson selling narcotics in the weeks leading up to the search. From what he had learned in his training, he believed Anderson, when he put his hands in his pockets, was trying to hide or get rid of drugs. The circuit court ruled Seeger’s search was justified under Act 79. Anderson appealed, and the court of appeals upheld the circuit court’s decision.

The state Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in September, and the justices filed an opinion affirming the appellate court’s decision Friday.

“In sum, we conclude that the circuit court’s finding of fact that the officer in this case had knowledge of Anderson’s supervision status prior to conducting the
warrantless search at issue is not clearly erroneous,” the opinion states.

Judge Brian Hagedorn wrote a separate concurring opinion because he said “both parties appeared to presume in their briefing that an officer’s knowledge of a person’s Act 79 status is a threshold question to the validity of any Act 79 search.”

Hagedorn said the question is for another day, but he said this kind of policy is fairly new, leaving judges with “little on-point legal authority.”

“Act 79 embraces a new policy that raises new questions — among them, whether and when the Fourth Amendment might demand more from law enforcement than Act 79 already requires,” Hagedorn wrote. “While today’s decision leaves these issues for another day, such questions should be analyzed by close reference to the text of Act 79 itself and faithful application of Fourth Amendment principles to those with an Act 79 status.”

Supreme Court hears arguments over OWI fine for drunken driver with baby in car

The Marquette County Courthouse sounded like a math classroom during oral arguments in a Wisconsin Supreme Court case on Monday. The justices asked two attorneys appearing before them how they’d calculate fines in a felony OWI case involving a baby in a car and a blood alcohol concentration more than four times the legal limit.

Charles Neill IV is asking the court to lower the $4,800 fine he received for a third-offense OWI he received in July 2016. According to court documents, he was hit with the fines following a series of incidents that started when h passed out in a minivan in a Subway drive-thru. He later woke up and drove off, threw a beer bottle at a witness who had followed him and nearly smashed into several cars. The witness called the police, who found Neill to be intoxicated. They said Neill had a one-year-old child in a carseat with the seat belt on but the shoulder straps unfastened. Neill was arrested and taken to the hospital for a blood test, which came back at a 0.353 BAC.

Neill was convicted of a third-offense OWI, and a judge sentenced Neill to two years in prison and a $4,800 fine, which is eight times the minimum fine. Having a BAC above 0.25 quadrupled the fine, and having a child in the car doubled the total and made the alleged crime a felony.

Neill and his attorney appealed, arguing that having a minor in the car should have no effect on the fine because the elevated BAC already enhanced it. They asked to have the fine reduced from $4,800 to $2,400, but the court of appeals rejected their argument and declined to provide post-conviction relief.

The state Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Monday. The justices are deciding how fines are calculated when the enhancers for having a minor passenger and an excessive alcohol concentration both apply.

“Reading this statute feels a little like a dog chasing its tail sometimes,” said Judge Brian Hagedorn.

The judges asked both the prosecutor and the defense attorney to calculate the applicable minimum and maximum fines under their interpretations of the statute. They came up with different numbers, but both said the statute was complex. The state and Neill are scheduled to comment later this month.

Wisconsin Republicans sue Democratic attorney general

By SCOTT BAUER
Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin Republican state lawmakers sued the Democratic attorney general Thursday, arguing that he’s not complying with laws passed during a lame-duck legislative session in December that limited his and the incoming governor’s powers shortly before they took office.

Republicans who control the Legislature filed the lawsuit against Attorney General Josh Kaul with the conservative-controlled state Supreme Court.

It’s the first lawsuit related to the lame-duck session filed by Republicans, who called the session and supported it. Four other lawsuits fighting the laws have been filed by Democrats and their allies.

The Supreme Court in June ruled that the session was legal, and nearly all of the laws enacted remain in effect while the lawsuits are pending. Republicans filed their lawsuit directly with the court on the day that Justice Brian Hagedorn took office, increasing the conservative majority to 5-2.

Republicans argue in the new lawsuit that Kaul isn’t following provisions of the law requiring him to get permission from lawmakers before settling lawsuits and giving the Legislature control over settlement money.

“It is egregious that Attorney General Kaul is playing a game of political keep away with potentially up to $20 million in funds that belong to hard-working Wisconsinites,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said in a joint statement announcing the lawsuit.

Kaul said in response that the Legislature is “wrong on the law” and incorrect that the Department of Justice he runs has not attempted to properly involve lawmakers in the resolution of cases.

“This is an attempt by the Legislature to use vague and poorly-written statutory language to substantially cut the budget for the Department of Justice, undermining public safety in Wisconsin,” Kaul said.

The laws at issue in the lawsuit are related to court settlements. Republicans contend in the lawsuit that Kaul must get their permission before settling a broad array of cases and any money from settlements must go into the state’s general fund. They contend the state has received more than $20 million in settlements between January and May that Kaul has not correctly deposited.

Kaul argues that the laws require legislative approval in a limited number of cases and he can set aside money from lawsuit settlements for specific purposes without approval by lawmakers.

Hagedorn to be sworn in Thursday

By TODD RICHMOND
Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Brian Hagedorn’s inauguration as a state Supreme Court justice this week will mark the end of a legal age and starkly underscore governors’ power to reshape Wisconsin courtrooms with like-minded appointees.

Hagedorn will be sworn in Thursday to replace the 83-year-old justice Shirley Abrahamson, the state’s longest-serving and first female justice. Abrahamson is a staunch liberal who chose not to seek re-election as she battles cancer. Hagedorn defeated the liberal-backed Appeals Court Judge Lisa Neubauer in April to claim the seat and strengthen conservatives’ control of the high court to 5-2.

The Hagedorn-Neubauer race, though ultimately settled by voters, pitted against each other two candidates who were initially appointed to lower courts by governors who appeared to share their ideology. Republican Scott Walker appointed Hagedorn to a spot on the 2nd District Court of Appeals in 2015. Democrat Jim Doyle appointed Neubauer to the same appeals court in 2007. Legal experts say their path to the courts is emblematic of governors packing the courts with allies, resulting in judges who produce predictable partisan decisions.

“You’d like to think you’ve got seven people sitting there and looking over the law and being fairly dispassionate about it. (Their decision) shouldn’t be predictable by someone who knows nothing about the law,” said Frank Tuerkheimer, an emeritus University of Wisconsin-Madison law professor who studies judicial ethics. “As we become more polarized why shouldn’t appointment of judges be polarized, too? I would be surprised if it were otherwise.”

The Wisconsin Constitution grants the governor the power to fill vacancies on any court, mirroring the federal system in which the president appoints federal judges. Unlike lifetime federal appointments, the governor’s appointments must run in the next election to keep the post. But the appointees go into the contests as incumbents, giving them a huge edge in name recognition and contributions.

Wisconsin has 272 state court judges. Governors have made 153 judicial appointments since 2002.

Doyle appointed 66 judges during his two terms, most notably giving Democratic state Rep. Gary Sherman a job as an appellate judge. Walker appointed 86 judges during his two terms, including making Attorney General Brad Schimel a Waukesha County judge in November just a day after Schimel conceded defeat in his bid for a second term.

Walker has also had a huge influence on keeping the Supreme Court in conservative hands.

Besides giving Hagedorn his start as a judge, he appointed Justice Rebecca Bradley to her first job as a judge in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, then named her as an appellate judge and finally appointed her to the high court in 2015 after Patrick Crooks died in office. Bradley used her incumbency as a springboard to defeat liberal JoAnne Kloppenburg in 2016 for a 10-year term on the court.

Walker appointed Justice Dan Kelly to the court that same year to replace retiring conservative David Prosser even though Kelly had never worked as a judge before.

Kelly and Bradley have gone on to play key roles in several significant rulings. They joined the conservative majority in two rulings in June that preserved Republican lame-duck laws limiting Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ powers and forced the state schools superintendent to get the governor’s permission before writing policies.

Kelly will face Dane County Circuit Judge Jill Karofsky and the Marquette University law professor Ed Fallone in next spring’s elections. The power of incumbency is already coming into play for Kelly; he’s built a substantial fundraising lead over both Karofsky and Fallone.

Evers has made one judicial appointment since taking office in January, picking attorney Rachel Graham to replace Sherman. Evers has plenty of time to make more appointments if openings present themselves before his first term ends in 2022.

“If he chooses to name highly ideological Democrats, that will change the philosophy of the courts and bring the divisiveness of politics further into the (judicial system),” said Howard Schweber, a UW-Madison political scientist who studies constitutional law and democratic theory.

Turkheimer said judicial elections don’t solve the problem because they hinge on campaign contributions, which can taint the perception of a candidate’s impartiality. Governors double as the leaders of their parties, giving them huge influence in elections as they recruit and promote candidates, Schweber added.

The state could turn to a nonpartisan commission to fill judicial vacancies but that would take a constitutional amendment stripping the governor of appointment powers. Such amendments must pass the Legislature in consecutive sessions and a statewide referendum before taking effect, a high bar in such a divisive political climate.

“An extreme level of partisan division is becoming more and more a feature of our politics at every level and it’s spreading into levels where it previously wasn’t a major feature. State courts are one of them,” Schweber said. “The question is when will people become tired of this and take action for a different kind of politics?”

Hagedorn swearing-in illustrates power of appointments

By TODD RICHMOND
Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Brian Hagedorn’s inauguration as a state Supreme Court justice this week will mark the end of a legal age and starkly underscore governors’ power to reshape Wisconsin courtrooms with like-minded appointees.

Hagedorn will be sworn in Thursday to replace the 83-year-old justice Shirley Abrahamson, the state’s longest-serving and first female justice. Abrahamson is a staunch liberal who chose not to seek re-election as she battles cancer. Hagedorn defeated the liberal-backed Appeals Court Judge Lisa Neubauer in April to claim the seat and strengthen conservatives’ control of the high court to 5-2.

The Hagedorn-Neubauer race, though ultimately settled by voters, pitted against each other two candidates who were initially appointed to lower courts by governors who appeared to share their ideology. Republican Scott Walker appointed Hagedorn to a spot on the 2nd District Court of Appeals in 2015. Democrat Jim Doyle appointed Neubauer to the same appeals court in 2007. Legal experts say their path to the courts is emblematic of governors packing the courts with allies, resulting in judges who produce predictable partisan decisions.

“You’d like to think you’ve got seven people sitting there and looking over the law and being fairly dispassionate about it. (Their decision) shouldn’t be predictable by someone who knows nothing about the law,” said Frank Tuerkheimer, an emeritus University of Wisconsin-Madison law professor who studies judicial ethics. “As we become more polarized why shouldn’t appointment of judges be polarized, too? I would be surprised if it were otherwise.”

The Wisconsin Constitution grants the governor the power to fill vacancies on any court, mirroring the federal system in which the president appoints federal judges. Unlike lifetime federal appointments, the governor’s appointments must run in the next election to keep the post. But the appointees go into the contests as incumbents, giving them a huge edge in name recognition and contributions.

Wisconsin has 272 state court judges. Governors have made 153 judicial appointments since 2002.

Doyle appointed 66 judges during his two terms, most notably giving Democratic state Rep. Gary Sherman a job as an appellate judge. Walker appointed 86 judges during his two terms, including making Attorney General Brad Schimel a Waukesha County judge in November just a day after Schimel conceded defeat in his bid for a second term.

Walker has also had a huge influence on keeping the Supreme Court in conservative hands.

Besides giving Hagedorn his start as a judge, he appointed Justice Rebecca Bradley to her first job as a judge in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, then named her as an appellate judge and finally appointed her to the high court in 2015 after Patrick Crooks died in office. Bradley used her incumbency as a springboard to defeat liberal JoAnne Kloppenburg in 2016 for a 10-year term on the court.

Walker appointed Justice Dan Kelly to the court that same year to replace retiring conservative David Prosser even though Kelly had never worked as a judge before.

Kelly and Bradley have gone on to play key roles in several significant rulings. They joined the conservative majority in two rulings in June that preserved Republican lame-duck laws limiting Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ powers and forced the state schools superintendent to get the governor’s permission before writing policies.

Kelly will face Dane County Circuit Judge Jill Karofsky and the Marquette University law professor Ed Fallone in next spring’s elections. The power of incumbency is already coming into play for Kelly; he’s built a substantial fundraising lead over both Karofsky and Fallone.

Evers has made one judicial appointment since taking office in January, picking attorney Rachel Graham to replace Sherman. Evers has plenty of time to make more appointments if openings present themselves before his first term ends in 2022.

“If he chooses to name highly ideological Democrats, that will change the philosophy of the courts and bring the divisiveness of politics further into the (judicial system),” said Howard Schweber, a UW-Madison political scientist who studies constitutional law and democratic theory.

Turkheimer said judicial elections don’t solve the problem because they hinge on campaign contributions, which can taint the perception of a candidate’s impartiality. Governors double as the leaders of their parties, giving them huge influence in elections as they recruit and promote candidates, Schweber added.

The state could turn to a nonpartisan commission to fill judicial vacancies but that would take a constitutional amendment stripping the governor of appointment powers. Such amendments must pass the Legislature in consecutive sessions and a statewide referendum before taking effect, a high bar in such a divisive political climate.

“An extreme level of partisan division is becoming more and more a feature of our politics at every level and it’s spreading into levels where it previously wasn’t a major feature. State courts are one of them,” Schweber said. “The question is when will people become tired of this and take action for a different kind of politics?”

Hagedorn, Neubauer set spending record in court race

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A new analysis shows Brian Hagedorn and Lisa Neubauer set new spending records during their state Supreme Court race.

Government watchdog group Wisconsin Democracy Campaign released a report Wednesday that shows the candidates combined to spend $3.7 million, breaking the old record of $2.7 million set in last year’s Supreme Court race. Individually, Neubauer spent just more than $2 million, the most any Supreme Court candidate has ever spent. Hagedorn spent $1.7 million.

Groups backing Neubauer spent nearly $2.9 million, with the Greater Wisconsin Committee spending nearly $2.3 million. Groups that supported Hagedorn spent nearly $1.7 million, led by the Republican State Leadership Committee with more than $1.2 million.

Hagedorn, a conservative, defeated the liberal-leaning Neubauer in the April 2 election to win a 10-year seat on the court.

Supreme Court candidates to speak at Democratic convention

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Two liberal candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court will speak at the state Democratic convention this weekend.

Jill Karofsky and Ed Fallone are looking to unseat the conservative justice Dan Kelly. Judicial candidates are officially nonpartisan but Republicans back Kelly and Democrats support Karofsky and Fallone. Both Karofsky and Fallone are scheduled to speak on Saturday at the Democratic convention in Milwaukee.

Justice-elect Brian Hagedorn turned heads when he appeared at the state GOP convention earlier in May and thanked those in attendance for electing him.

Fallone notes the liberal Supreme Court candidates Rebecca Dallet and Tim Burns appeared at the 2018 Democratic convention. He intends to make a “nonpartisan appeal” to voters on Saturday.

Sachin Chheda, a consultant for Karofsky, also pointed to Dallet and Burns’ appearances as precedent. He says Karofsky will stress judicial independence Saturday.

Final Hagedorn margin nearly same as unofficial tally

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The state Elections Commission is certifying Brian Hagedorn’s victory over Lisa Neubauer in a Supreme Court race, with a final tally that differed from the unofficial count by just a handful of votes.

Unofficial returns from the April 2 election showed Hagedorn ahead of Neubauer by 5,962 votes. The commission’s certified count Wednesday gave Hagedorn a 5,981-vote margin.

Neubauer had mulled a recount but ultimately decided against it and conceded defeat on April 10.

Hagedorn and Neubauer were vying to replace the retiring liberal justice Shirley Abrahamson, who is battling cancer.

Hagedorn will serve a 10-year term. His win means the court’s conservative majority will grow from 4-3 to 5-2 when he takes the seat in August.

Neubauer defeat dashes liberals’ hope for Supreme Court majority

Lisa Neubauer conceded to Brian Hagedorn on Wednesday, a week after Democrats woke to a shocking result.

Liberals and Democrats had a money advantage, a template from Rebecca Dallet’s big court victory in 2018, and a turnout boost courtesy of various school spending-referendums, contested mayoral races in Madison and Green Bay and a Democratic primary for legislative seat once held by former state Rep. Peter Barca.

On top of that, the usual sort of conservative coalition that had helped engineer a solid court majority for the right fell apart over Hagedorn’s past writings on gays.

But grassroots conservatives, the state GOP and late money from out of state woke up the Christian right and the WOW counties around Milwaukee to give Hagedorn a narrow upset win.

Hagedorn, age 41, will take over for the longtime liberal Justice Shirley Abrahamson, 85, who is dealing with cancer and has decided against seeking another 10-year term. She had been on the high court since 1976.

So Hagedorn wil not only takes Abrahamson’s seat to the delight of conservatives who have railed against her for year; he will also dash the hopes of liberals who had dreams of taking back the court majority.

Dallett’s win got liberals closer to having a 4-3 advantage. Then Neubauer was supposed to keep Abrahamson’s seat. And in 2020, when Democrats statewide turn out for a presidential primary, they would complete the task by dispatching Justice Daniel Kelly, appointed to the court by Scott Walker. Republicans were so fearful of this scenario that they even thought about changing the date of the spring elections next year.

That liberal dream is now kaput. When Hagedorn gets sworn in this summer, the conservative court majority will be back to 5-2 and give conservatives a cushion should Kelly lose.

The win was narrow — some 6,000 votes — but enough for a liberal loss. This can be added to the list of “what ifs” that takes into account Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2018 and JoAnne Kloppenburg’s in 2011.

“Judge Hagedorn said that he was running to get partisan influences out of our courts, and I hope he lives up to his promise,” Neubauer said. “Our courts are strongest when politics are set aside, and we follow the law regardless of personal views.”

In a message to supporters, Hagedorn said he was “deeply humbled and grateful.” Throughout the campaign, he said a justice should “say what the law is, not what the law should be,” that partisan politics have no place at the court, and he would uphold the constitution as written.

“I meant every word, and I will endeavor to fulfill these promises with all my ability,” said Hagedorn, a former Walker aide appointed by the then-governor to the state appeals court in 2015.

Tyler Hendricks, a spokesman for Neubauer, said Neubauer won’t run for the state Supreme Court next year, when Kelly is up for a full 10-year term. She instead will look at seeking another six-year term on the 2nd District Court of Appeals, where she had served alongside Hagedorn.

TV numbers shared with WisPolitics.com and a check of filings with the state Ethics Commission detailing independent expenditures show outside groups backing Neubauer outspent those supporting Hagedorn by nearly 2-to-1. Still, Neubauer bemoaned the role of outside money, saying she hoped future races would see less influence from “outside special interests.”

The Republican State Leadership Committee’s Judicial Fairness Initiative spent more than $1.2 million over the last week of the race on TV, digital ads, mail and other advertising backing Hagedorn.

“With more than $1 million poured in against me with false and misleading attacks in the final week alone, it’s not hard to imagine that is what made the difference,” Neubauer said.

The Capitol Report is written by editorial staff at WisPolitics.com, a nonpartisan, Madison-based news service that specializes in coverage of government and politics, and is distributed for publication by members of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association.

Neubauer concedes Wisconsin Supreme Court race

By SCOTT BAUER
Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The liberal candidate in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race conceded Wednesday, deciding against a recount eight days after the election showed her conservative opponent ahead by 6,000 votes in a race seen as an early measure of a key battleground in the 2020 presidential campaign.

Lisa Neubauer’s concession to Brian Hagedorn means the conservative majority on the court will increase from 4-3 to 5-2 when he takes the seat in August. Conservatives will hold control until at least 2023, denying liberals a change to take the majority in next year’s election.

The Hagedorn win also gives Republicans a boost of confidence heading into the 2020 presidential election year, with his victory coming after a string of stinging losses last year.

Republicans and Democrats alike pointed to the thin margin as a sign of how hotly contested Wisconsin will be in 2020. The tight race came after Republican Scott Walker lost the governor’s race by just over a point in 2018 and President Donald Trump carried Wisconsin by just under a point in 2016.

Liberals were optimistic they could win the seat, especially after a Democratic-backed candidate won in 2018 and Democrats swept statewide elections in November, most notably ousting Walker.

Neubauer got out to an early fundraising lead and appeared to have the momentum, until a surge of more than $1 million from Republican groups poured into the state in the final week of the race making the argument that Hagedorn was being unfairly criticized for his Christian beliefs.

President Donald Trump tweeted congratulations to Hagedorn, calling it a “big surprise win” in a “very important Supreme Court seat.”

Neubauer said in a Wednesday statement that the late burst of outside money against her was the difference-maker in the race. She also benefited from more than $1 million in outside spending.

“I hope future races see less influence from outside special interests,” Neubauer said. “He said that he was running to get partisan influences out of our courts, and I hope he lives up to his promise.”

Hagedorn, in a message to supporters Wednesday, said he “meant every word” when he said during the campaign that partisan politics has no place in the Supreme Court. He also thanked supporters for their hard work and prayers.

“Together, we made history,” Hagedorn said.

Neubauer called Hagedorn on Wednesday morning to concede and wish him good luck. Canvassing from the majority of Wisconsin’s counties showed a change of less than 200 votes in the total, both campaigns said.

The race was the closest for Wisconsin Supreme Court since 2011, when Justice David Prosser won by just over 7,000 votes, or four-tenths of a point.

Unofficial results showed Neubauer trailing by just under half a percentage point. That is within the 1-point margin for a recount, but Neubauer would have had to pay for it because it wasn’t within the quarter of a point margin to make it free.

Hagedorn, 41, is a former member of the Kenosha County Republican Party and served as a law clerk for state Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, whose victory in 2008 gave conservatives control of the court. Hagedorn served as an assistant attorney general, worked in private practice and was Walker’s chief legal counsel for nearly five years. Walker appointed him to the state appeals court in 2015 and Hagedorn won election two years later.

Hagedorn spent much of the race defending his personal conservative beliefs . Opponents pointed to a blog he wrote while a law school student in the mid-2000s and his founding of a conservative private school that allows for expelling students who are gay. Hagedorn was also paid $3,000 to give speeches at meetings of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group that supported criminalizing sodomy and sterilizing transgender people.

In his blog, Hagedorn wrote about his evangelical Christian beliefs, calling Planned Parenthood a “wicked organization” and denouncing court rulings favoring gay rights by likening homosexuality to bestiality.

Hagedorn was endorsed by the National Rifle Association and Wisconsin Right to Life.

Hagedorn will serve a 10-year term and replace retiring liberal Justice Shirley Abrahamson, who is battling cancer. A former chief justice, the 85-year-old Abrahamson is the longest-serving member of the court, now in her 43rd year.

VIEW FROM AROUND THE STATE: Recount of close Supreme Court race makes plenty of sense

The race for Wisconsin Supreme Court produced one of the closest results in recent state history. With an unofficial count of the more than 1.2 million votes cast in Tuesday’s election for the open seat, Judge Brian Hagedorn, a favorite of conservatives, leads Judge Lisa Neubauer, the chief judge of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals who drew substantial backing from liberals, by roughly 6,000 votes.

That’s a 50.2 percent to 49.8 percent lead for Hagedorn. He says: “The people of Wisconsin have spoken and our margin of victory is insurmountable.” Neubauer’s team took a different view on election night, announcing: “We are almost assuredly headed to a recount. We are going to make sure every vote is counted. Wisconsinites deserve to know we have had a fair election and that every vote is counted.”

A 6,000-vote lead is tough to overcome. But we disagree with Hagedorn’s suggestion that it doesn’t make sense for Neubauer to pursue a recount.

Neubauer and her aides will have to decide how they want to proceed. But if they request an official recount, the ask should be respected as appropriate, well intended and good for Wisconsin.

First off, the margin now stands within the range where state law allows for a recount. After a review of the ballots to establish the official count, it could get closer. So talk of a recount is reasonable based on the numbers.

Beyond that, we believe, as we have frequently stated over the years, that recounts of votes and official reviews of close races are vital to maintaining confidence in national, state and local elections.

When elections produce a close or controversial result, it is appropriate for candidates who appear to be on the losing end of the count to ask questions and to pursue remedies. No one expects the candidates who are ahead on election night to object to the count; they are too busy claiming the “mandates” they believe have been accorded them.

It falls to candidates who hold out a small hope for a reversal of fortune to demand that every vote be counted and counted accurately. This is one of the reasons states allow for recounts and reviews of voting.

Unfortunately, in an age of hyperpartisan spin by candidates, campaigns and partisans on all sides, there is a tendency to see demands for recounts as the burdensome expressions of sore losers. Sometimes they are that. But for Wisconsinites who concern themselves with the functioning of elections that confer authority on executives, legislators and jurists, recounts are understood as fundamental underpinnings of democracy. They only rarely overturn initial results. But even when they simply confirm those results, they give us all greater confidence in the infrastructure of Wisconsin democracy.