April 8, 2015

Liberals won and lost in yesterday's Wisconsin Supreme Court election — and this particular win/loss combination is good for conservatives.

Steven Elbow reports in the Cap Times:
Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley won a third 10-year term Tuesday, saving the liberal block of the court from near extinction. But the election was double-edged for Bradley and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson as voters approved a constitutional amendment to change the way the chief justice is chosen, a measure that will almost certainly oust Abrahamson from the job....

Leading up to Tuesday’s contest, only the union-backed Greater Wisconsin Committee ran TV ads on behalf of a candidate. The group booked $102,000 for an ad attacking [the conservative challenger James] Daley, while Bradley spent about $510,000 on ads. Daley ran no television ads, and no one ran any on his behalf. Instead, WMC gave $600,000 to the group Vote Yes for Democracy to run an ad supporting the measure regarding the chief justice selection. The Greater Wisconsin Committee raised $280,000 to run an ad opposing it.
How could an unknown challenger with no TV ads beat a well-known incumbent with lots of ads? Daley was left to lose, and the serious fight was over depriving Abrahamson of the leadership position on the court:
The measure, which passed two consecutive sessions of the GOP-controlled Legislature and was approved by voters Tuesday, ends the 126-year practice of choosing the justice with the most seniority. The chief justice will now be chosen by the justices themselves. The position has been held since 1996 by Abrahamson, who won her fourth 10-year term to the court in 2009. Critics call the change a blatant attack on the 81-year-old Abrahamson, who also might also have to contend with a GOP proposal to set a retirement age for the court. The constitutional measure, crafted by Republicans and backed by Daley, was likely not seen by voters as ideological, said UW political science professor Barry Burden.
Prof. Burden observed that many voters probably saw the constitutional amendment as politically neutral rather than an important way for the liberal minority to retain some significant power, which at this point in the court's history, it surely is. Insert "Don't call me Shirley" joke.
The conservative block consists of four justices, with a fifth, Patrick Crooks, seen as a swing vote. In recent controversial cases, the partisan divide has been on display. Bradley and Abrahamson voted against Walker’s collective bargaining measure in a 5-2 decision....  At one point an argument concerning when to release the decision escalated to the point that [Justice David] Prosser and Bradley had a physical altercation....
I won't rehash the Prosser-Bradley incident. You can search the word "chokehold" in my archive to sift through that.

The point I want to make here is: Conservatives did not need another conservative justice to control the court.  In fact, a weak conservative justice would hurt the conservative cause, because he would make the conservative side seem more political, rather than as the dedicated followers of law they want us to see them to be. And if Shirley Abrahamson were stranded as the only liberal jurist on the court, she might gain luster as the venerable lone dissenter. With Bradley, there are 2 — a liberal bloc, however small.

That bloc can't win, so conservatives have nothing to lose. In fact, conservatives gain, because 2 justices voting together can more easily be portrayed as ideological and political than Shirley Abrahamson standing heroically alone.

39 comments:

garage mahal said...

WMC spent 600k so we can get Chief Justice Gableman. It's really what this state deserves to be honest.

Ann Althouse said...

I hate judicial elections. People don't understand what they are doing, and it's way too hard to beat an incumbent, who can usually successfully be portrayed as a serious, neutral jurist.

In this election, "only the union-backed Greater Wisconsin Committee ran TV ads on behalf of a candidate," Ann Walsh Bradley. And she also "spent about $510,000 on ads." Daley had no ads at all, and he had the uphill battle of establishing name recognition.

If Daley had had money to spend coming from the interests that like conservative outcomes, he might have been competitive (even though, judging from his debate performance, he wasn't particularly good at putting words together).

Ann Althouse said...

The conservative advertising money was spent on taking Abrahamson out of the leadership position.

My point in the post was that this was an intelligent choice of how to spend the conservative money, and this is a big (and insidious!) conservative victory.

Tim said...

People don't understand what they are doing-

Just like every election. If only informed voters voted it would be over in a few hours.

Ann Althouse said...

The next Wisconsin Supreme Court justice up for re-election is Patrick Crooks, identified as the swing vote. That's next year.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

What powers does the Chief Justice have, above and beyond the powers of the other justices?

Ann Althouse said...

Crooks will be 78 years old when he would be up for reelection to a 10 year term, so I'm not assuming he will run again.

Laslo Spatula said...

"And she also "spent about $510,000 on ads."

Someone somewhere is expecting return on their investment.

I am Laslo.

Tank said...

Ann Althouse said...

I hate judicial elections. People don't understand what they are doing, ....


As Tim noted, how would this be any different from the majority of people in most elections?

Beta Rube said...

Beyond one vote, what can the Chief Justice actually do to affect the outcome of a case before the court?

Skyler said...

Interesting theory on maintaining power.

I am of the school that you don't let evil liars stay in any position of authority and more favorable justices are better than fewer, because future elections might tip the balance back and that freebie election that was sacrificed in the interest of appearing more fair will haunt them.

Skyler said...

As for electing Justices, that's no worse than politicians appointing Justices, especially to life time posts, such as Article III judges and justices.

Texas was able to replace almost the entire Supreme Court about 20 years ago. The democrat-aligned Court was completely out of step with Texas culture and dominant ideologies. The people of Texas were able to spend money to change them. I prefer that to being stuck with crack pots for decades who have the power to overturn any law they don't agree with.

No system is perfect, but I trust the people to be able to fix mistakes more than I trust politicians to not make them.

TosaGuy said...

Listened to WPR talk about this and their "concern" about money in supreme court races and made a big deal about WMC money. They made no mention about money from the Greater Wisconsin Committee or that spent by Bradley.

Beta Rube said...

I remember Woodward recounting a story in The Brethren about a conversation between a new justice and an old timer. The new one said something like "I'm inclined to follow the leadership of The Court on this issue", and the old timer was appalled, because Chief Justice is basically a figurehead with one vote like the other eight.

Anonymous said...

I have a question about that "swing vote"... he may swing right, he may swing left, he may stand by himdelf, what difference does his vote make?

Meade said...

TosaGuy said...

According to the same Wiki page, Butler ran for an open state supreme court seat in 2000 and lost to Diane Sykes. At the time Butler was a Milwaukee municipal judge handling traffic tickets.

He won a Milwaukee County Circuit Court seat in 2002 and was APPOINTED to the state supreme court in 2004. 2008 was the first year he was up for election.

Wisconsin voters didn't want him the first time and was only on the court due to an appointment.

rcocean said...

People usually don't understand - but sometimes they do and they can get rid of crackpots.

Its a great check on judicial power. Its too bad we don't have it at the SCOTUS level.

SGT Ted said...

People are also tired of the obvious and ongoing attempts by Progressives to politically control the courts in order to override the will of the people and the actual Constitution.

Personally, I don't care if there are ANY liberals or conservatives on the courts, as long as they uphold the law and don't pretend to see things that aren't in the Constitution to justify overturning legislation they don't like.

garage mahal said...

There is really nothing left for Republicans to control in the state. They have a stranglehold on everything. They are probably getting bored. WMC is under investigation. 600k was well spent.

Wince said...

Given the pugilistic history between the justices, instead of election they should be chosen in a Steel Cage Match.

Sebastian said...

"People don't understand what they are doing."

So let's check their understanding--some tests of literacy, state/national history, Econ 101, and for judicial elections 10 top cases, should do the trick.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

garage mahal said...

There is really nothing left for Republicans to control in the state. They have a stranglehold on everything.

It's not a stranglehold! How many times do we have to go over this? The Republicans had their hands up in self-defense and the state ran into them!

Birkel said...

"garage mahal" is worried about money in politics? I guess the billion dollars Hillary! intends to raise are causing many sleepless nights.

Chuck said...

This is, as usual, a sterling analysis by Althouse of the scene in Wisconsin.

Where I strongly disagree with Althouse is in her contempt for judicial elections. Somebody already beat me to it in saying that low-information voters vote on lots of things, not just judges. So there's that. Clearly.

But let's go further. Without judicial elections, we'd have some other, truly terrible, system of judicial selection. Perhaps some kind of "merit selection." Google "Missouri Plan" if you are unacquainted with the topic. You see, with merit selection processes, we inevitably get panels consisting of law professors, eminent lawyers, and bar associations to weigh in -- heavily, most often -- on qualifying and selecting judges. And with those kinds of selections, you can be absolutely assured that public policy as filtered through the legal profession will turn to the left.

Left alone, the legal profession would tear apart tort reform. Because they want to help fellow lawyers (litigators on both the plaintiff and defense side) make money. Liberal-leaning law profs and bar associations would tilt things in favor of their side in the culture wars.

As Justice Scalia noted in Lawrence v. Texas, that decision was the product of a court, which was itself a product of our law school culture, in which one side of the culture war has already been declared the winner.

Letting lawyers select judges is every bit as bad as turning over judicial selection to a single-minded group of union leaders; or bankers; or teachers; or bricklayers; or rabbis; or bus drivers.

I am a lawyer; that's precisely why I write this with such passion. We need to preserve judicial elections.

garage mahal said...

It's not a stranglehold!

Metaphorically. No need to literally strangle anyone to bull-rush bills through any longer.

Gusty Winds said...

Blogger Ann Althouse said...
I hate judicial elections. People don't understand what they are doing...


But in the Prosser vs. Kloppenburg race in 2011 people were engaged and did understand the difference between the two. It was a referendum on Act 10, and liberals were clearly looking to the court to overturn legislation. Each judicial candidate represented a predetermined outcome.

Whether appointed or elected I don't believe anybody thinks judges at this level are 'neutral' jurists. That's just pretend.

BTW...Kloppenburg's pre-mature eleculation press conference on that 200 vote margin is a great "Dewey Defeats Truman" moments in Wisconsin History.

God Bless Brookfield.

sane_voter said...

Kloppenburg's pre-mature eleculation press conference on that 200 vote margin is a great "Dewey Defeats Truman" moments in Wisconsin History.

LOL


I typed "Kloppenberg" into Google and one of the top recommended auto-fill recommendations is "Kloppenberg uncertain victory". [I realize now I misspelled her name] Turns out that is a book by a male Harvard professor on Progressivism, not about the tumultuous election of 2011.

garage mahal said...

Hey! We found 15,000 votes! Looks like the choker won!

Once written, twice... said...

Republicans changed the constitution because they currently don't like who is serving as the chief judge. Republicans are jokes when they claim they revere the constitution.

alan markus said...

This just showed up on AP - haven't seen it on Milwaukee Journal yet:

APNewsBreak: Supreme Court chief justice sues over amendment that could lead to her ouster

MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson has filed a federal lawsuit to try to ensure she is not removed from her post.

Abrahamson filed the lawsuit Wednesday, a day after voters approved a constitutional amendment changing the process for selecting the chief justice.

For the past 126 years the position has gone to the most senior member of the court. The amendment lets the seven justices decide who will be the chief.

The liberal Abrahamson was expected to be voted out by the four-justice conservative majority.

Abrahamson argues in the lawsuit that the change should not be applied until after her current term ends in 2019. If it is applied, she argues it would be a violation of her constitutional due process rights.

Curious George said...

"Once written, twice... said...
Republicans changed the constitution because they currently don't like who is serving as the chief judge. Republicans are jokes when they claim they revere the constitution."

This is idiocy. They amended the Constitution by the process outlined in the Constitution. To the letter. That in itself is reverence.

Unlike lefties, who simply ignore what the document says and do what they want.

Gusty Winds said...

Blogger Once written, twice... said...
Republicans changed the constitution because they currently don't like who is serving as the chief judge. Republicans are jokes when they claim they revere the constitution.


The amendment went through Wisconsin's required three step process with final approval authority being given to the voters. I

In the end, the people of the State amended the Wisconsin Constitution. They did have the option not to.

It can also be scrapped and completely replaced through a new Constitutional Convention, which must also be approved by the voters.

And since 1848 the Wisconsin State Constitution has been amended over a hundred times.

Curious George said...

alan markus said...
This just showed up on AP - haven't seen it on Milwaukee Journal yet:

APNewsBreak: Supreme Court chief justice sues over amendment that could lead to her ouster

MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson has filed a federal lawsuit to try to ensure she is not removed from her post.

Abrahamson filed the lawsuit Wednesday, a day after voters approved a constitutional amendment changing the process for selecting the chief justice.

For the past 126 years the position has gone to the most senior member of the court. The amendment lets the seven justices decide who will be the chief.

The liberal Abrahamson was expected to be voted out by the four-justice conservative majority.

Abrahamson argues in the lawsuit that the change should not be applied until after her current term ends in 2019. If it is applied, she argues it would be a violation of her constitutional due process rights."

This is why the amendment was needed.

Gusty Winds said...

Abrahamson argues in the lawsuit that the change should not be applied until after her current term ends in 2019. If it is applied, she argues it would be a violation of her constitutional due process rights.

Did anybody think Ms. Abrahamson respected the will of the voters, legislature, or Governor once the State changed direction? The document has legally changed.

Ms. Abrahamson is a joke when she claims she reveres the constitution.

Her temper tantrum will end in her not finishing her term through 2019. I predict a Helen Thomas like self destruction coming.

Gusty Winds said...

Justices are paid $147,403 a year while the chief justice earns $155,403.

Maybe she's just pissed about the pay cut. How about we give her the $8000 and say please move out of the way; thank you.

Mark said...

The Daley campaign previously disclosed radio ad buys totaling $108,112 through March 23, 2015.

Not exactly `no ads at all', especially with Charlie Sykes, Vicki McKenna, and other very strong right wing radio hosts in Wisconsin.

http://cfis.wi.gov/ReportsOutputFiles/010246912629df7330201584125PMGAB2Report.pdf

I thought robocalls counted as advertising too.

----
Supreme Court candidate James Daley personally recorded a robocall paid for by the Republican Party that went to Wisconsin voters' homes today.

In the message, Daley introduces himself, asks for votes and states the call is paid for by the Republican Party of Wisconsin.

"I'm committed to serving in a fair and impartial manner in upholding the rule of law and protecting the constitution," Daley says in the 30-second message. "As a judge for nearly three decades, I bring the experience necessary to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court. I'm Judge James Daley and I hope I can count on your vote for Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justice."

Daley’s opponent, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, has made an issue out of Daley’s ties to the state GOP, which has made a series of in-kind donations to his campaign.

http://elections.wispolitics.com/2015/04/daley-records-robocall-paid-for-by.html

RecChief said...

People don't understand what they are doing-


so these same people, who don't understand what they're doing in a voting booth, should vote for a politician who will then appoint someone to the bench? just because the action is one step removed, that makes the voting of people who don't understand, ok?

By the way, if there was ever a strong indication of your leftism, it was right there in that statement.

Skeptical Voter said...

Heck there are people who spend a lot of time on this blog who "didn't know what they were doing" when they voted for Obama in '08. And I'll be danged if some of them didn't repeat that mistake in 2012.

That said an 81 year old State Supreme Court Justice is in danger of sliding over the mental hill. In the late 60's and early 70's the California Supreme Court had an aging male associate justice who had become at least marginally mentally incompetent. He refused to step down. The testimony that led to his ouster from the court was pitiful. On more than one occasion the old boy stood in front of a urinal and forgot to open his raincoat.

There may be some glory in serving a full 40 years on a State Supreme Court bench---but time catches up to all of us. Folks need to know when to slow down.

Fen said...

Althouse: My point in the post was that this was an intelligent choice of how to spend the conservative money, and this is a big (and insidious!) conservative victory.

Yup. Excellent analysis.