The elected judiciary is playing an increasingly crucial role in states where the collective fate of individual rights is now on state court dockets.

And there was no more consequential judicial election than in Wisconsin this year, when Janet Protasiewicz’s victory ushered in a liberal majority on state Supreme Court at a time when challenges to abortion rights, LGBTQ protections and redistricting are likely to be decided by the justices.

Five months after the election, Alejandro Verdin, the justice’s campaign manager; Michael Wagner, University of Wisconsin-Madison Journalism professor; and Felesia Martin, Wisconsin Democratic Party vice-chair, told the National Press Foundation’s Statehouse Reporting fellows that the fight for the justice’s seat is not over.

Protasiewicz, whose contest stands as the most expensive judicial race in American history, now faces a threat of impeachment from Republican lawmakers who have called on the justice to recuse herself from pending redistricting litigation after describing the state’s legislative maps as “rigged” during her campaign.

During the campaign, Protasiewicz also spoke in favor of abortion rights. Verdin said the campaign statements were expressions of her personal beliefs, not how she would rule on possible cases.

What they said.

Alejandro Verdin, campaign manager, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz:

“The angle we took was when talking about our personal beliefs was that you’re going to vote for this person and before you go vote for them, you should know who they are and what they believe and what makes them that, that’s important.

“Never was she saying, ‘I’m going to vote this way or I don’t like the way those maps look, so I’m going to throw them out.’ None of that was ever said because no cases were in front of the court… I don’t care how non-partisan you are, I don’t care how pristine your record is, you believe in something.”

Felesia Martin, vice-chair, Wisconsin Democratic Party:

“I would hope (judicial elections) would not become partisan because if we are a country made up of laws and then we’re supposed to be governed by the rule of law, I don’t believe the rule of law is partisan or it ought not be in theory…

“But we know we’ve always had activist courts whether we want to accept that or believe it or not, we’ve always had activist courts. And it has been my fervent hope that we would not have that, that they would govern according to law.”  

Michael Wagner, professor University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication:

“I think judges who run for office can do a better job of explaining their judicial philosophy and explaining the constraints than any given case might have with respect to that philosophy. I think about it like (this): I’ve got a 15-year-old daughter, and so when she turns 16, our philosophy will be to let her drive a car… Maybe we’ll constrain that. Maybe we’ll constrain it to say, ‘we have to drive with you at night 10 times before we are happy with you,’ or whatever it is. And so, the philosophy is one thing, but the constraint of a case is another.” 

Go to the transcript.

This program is funded by Arnold Ventures. NPF is solely responsible for the content.