Wisconsin Supreme Court elections

From Judgepedia

Wisconsin's seven state supreme court justices are elected in non-partisan statewide elections to ten-year terms on the court.

Interim vacancies on the court are filled by gubernatorial appointment. Any interim justices so appointed must run for election the next spring in which no other justice is to be elected; however, f the vacancy occurs between December 1 and the spring election, appointees then run for election in the next spring's election.^[1]

Once a justice has first been elected to the court, he or she must run again in non-partisan elections for subsequent ten-year terms on the court.

In April 2009, there is an election for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court; incumbent justice Shirley Abrahamson is defending her seat on the court against challenger, Jefferson County judge Randy Koschnick. Although the elections are technically non-partisan, Justice Abrahamson is identified with the Democratic Party and Judge Koschnick is identified with the Republican Party.

2009 race

Shirley Abrahamson was challenged for her seat by Randy Koschnick and won re-election.

Possible costly race

Not unlike the contests in 2007 and 2008, the 2009 Supreme Court race between Shirley Abrahamson and Randy Koschnick is expected to be a well-funded battle. Justice Abrahamson noted during a November 2008 public appearance in Wisconsin that both sides could spend $5 million this spring. Justice Abrahamson opined that such an expensive race “gives the public the perception that justice is for sale in Wisconsin.” ^[2].

After the 2008 election, the seven justices on the court wrote the Wisconsin State Legislature to indicate their support for public financing of Supreme Court races. Thus far no bill has been proposed, but it is thought that something could surface in the new legislative calendar for 2009 with Democrats in control of both houses of the Legislature in Wisconsin. Justice Abrahamson believes that third party funds present in recent races for the court from special interests in and out of the state will continue if public financing is not passed.^[2]

"Partisan politics and big money serves to possibly undermine what should be an impartial, fair judiciary,” according to Justice Abrahamson. "The influence of big money on judicial races is a national problem, not just in Wisconsin," Abrahamson emphasized.^[2]

Clean campaign pledge

At the time of his announcement Judge Koschnick issued a clean campaign challenge to Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson to repudiate personal attacks by third party special interest groups.^[3] Koschnick has accused Abrahamson of being a judicial activist, something that Abrahamson acknowledges is a common campaign technique.

“Sandra Day O’Connor said an activist judge is one who gets out of bed in the morning,” Abrahamson said. “It is a way to slur or slander a judge, primarily when you don’t agree with a decision," stated Abrahamson. “Judges can differ. It’s OK. But, not on a partisan basis, emphasizing that cases should be decided on the facts and not by judges who have an agenda or whose decisions are based on a dictate of any group of any kind.” Justices should not be “anti- or pro- anything,” Abrahamson said. Courts should be “neutral, fair, impartial and non-partisan”^[2].

On November 20, 2008, Koschnick made it official he wanted a clean campaign pledge signed between Chief Justice Abrahamson and himself in public in a timely manner.^[4]

On signing the clean campaign pledge, Koschnick stated: "It’s my deep belief the people of Wisconsin want and expect a campaign which focuses only on our records, opinions, qualifications, and judicial philosophies and is devoid of personal attacks. While we are certain to have professional differences regarding our judicial philosophies, I feel we can convey those differences while showing mutual respect for each other and the voters of Wisconsin.”

Highlights of the clean campaign pledge include:

• Focusing on the records and judicial philosophies of the two candidates
• Renouncing personal attacks, refusing and returning contributions from parties with cases before their respective courts
• Substantiating all claims made during the course of the campaign
• Repudiating false accusations made by third party groups
• Having no fewer then six independent and public debates.

“It is my hope Justice Abrahamson and I can sign this pledge by the end of the week,” Koschnick said in a statement issued by his campaign. “This clean campaign pledge will help provide people of this state with the kind of race they deserve, one that focuses on the issues.”^[4].

Since the campaign started, a big question that will be raised by the statewide media in Wisconsin if the tenor of the campaign would be like in the last two elections of 2007 or 2008 or would it take a different turn in 2009 as concerns have been raised over negative campaigning in the last two Supreme Court Elections^[5].

Judicial philosophy

Judge Koschnick has identified his philosophy as one of judicial restraint, calling himself a judicial conservative, while noting that Justice Abrahamson is an "activist who legislates from the bench."^[6]

Chief Justice Abrahamson is an advocate of judicial independence. Her well-circulated essay "Judicial Independence as a Campaign Platform" articulates the debate as such^[7]:

"Many judicial candidates are choosing not to exercise their First Amendment rights fully because they are concerned they may tarnish the public's perception of fairness and impartiality, and may disqualify themselves from sitting on cases....In any judicial selection system, the best way to ensure judicial independence is to develop the public's understanding of, and respect for, the concept of judicial independence....Judicial independence means that judges decide cases fairly and impartially, relying only on the facts and the law..."

"There are two types of judicial independence: decisional independence and institutional independence (sometimes called branch independence). Decisional independence refers to a judge's ability to render decisions free from political or popular influence; decisions should be based solely upon the facts of the individual case and the applicable law. Institutional independence describes the judicial branch as a separate and co-equal branch of government with the executive and legislative branches."

Election reform discussion

With money spent on judicial races at an all-time high, and national attention on the past two Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, there have been calls to reform the means by which Wisconsin chooses its judges.^[8]

One possible reform is having the Supreme Court elections on the fall ballot as was discussed during a November 18, 2008 forum held at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. Supreme Court Justice N. Patrick Crooks said “We should tie these races to those races where there is a larger turnout of voters,” calling the 19 percent turnout for the Supreme Court election this April “something we should all be ashamed of.” ^[8] Also attending this forum were Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and Chairman of the Wisconsin Democracy Council Mike McCabe.

McCabe has pressed the Wisconsin Legislature to sign the Impartial Justice bill, providing public funding for judicial campaigns that many experts call a first step for reform. As currently written, it would cost $2.8 million and could be one of the first measures the Legislature will address in the new session.^[8]

Presumably defining the problem, McCabe cited that recent Supreme Court campaigns have used partisan campaign operatives and the candidates running for the highest court have amassed donor lists that are indistinguishable from the lists collected for partisan races.^[8] When commenting on the current system, McCabe said “The old system is dead broken, it’s flat busted... We have to have reform that enables candidates to be free of the money race.”

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who was re-elected in 2005, said on the perceived lack of elections reform that: “Rather it is a lack of leadership, and it is a lack of political will to bring about the necessary reforms.”

During the forum Justice Crooks recommended other reforms, such as requiring outside interest groups to disclose their contributors, greater efforts to educate voters about the role of the Supreme Court, and get out the vote drives for judicial elections.^[8]

Debate over selection process

Scott Milfred, an editorial page writer and editor for the Wisconsin State Journal^[9] said that the practice of electing justices has turned judges into politicians. Milfred claimed at the UW-Madison forum that the election process has turned the Supreme Court into a second Legislature, where parties who don’t get what they want from the legislative branch turn to the justices to change their fortunes.^[8] Milfred said that of the last 50 Supreme Court justices in Wisconsin 33 gained their seat on the court initially through appointment by the governor.

Other panelists harshly disagreed with a commission-selected political format for judicial selection. Justice N. Patrick Crooks pointed out that in many states like Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma their merit selection system has become politicized; and in Tennessee their commission-based appointment system was recently ruled unconstitutional.^[8]

“Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater,” Crooks said. “The baby is the right to elect, and we don’t want to give that up. It’s important that we have the right to elect our judges.”

In December of 2008, The Capital Times in a editorial harshly criticized the use of commission-selected political appointed methods of judges claiming that if the the power of the electorate is taken away to vote for judges in Wisconsin, then integrity of judges being selected by a group of lawyers and lay members would be compromised as Wisconsin has had a long history of giving voters rights to vote for Supreme Court Justices and raised fears of political corruption amid of the recent events in the State of Illinois over the appointment of elected officials^[10].

Administration of the court

A issue that may be of increasing importance is on who is best equipped to be the best administrative leader for Wisconsin's judicial system. This will be an issue that will be of increasing importance as Wisconsin is facing one of its worse budget deficits in in state history as the budget deficit is looming towards $6 billion^[11].

The state budget issue would press the issue of delivering justice plus public safety while giving taxpayers of Wisconsin savings and value in their justice system as the state budget situation is worsening. Randy Koschnick's leadership as the Chief Judge of the Jefferson County Circuit Court has been evidenced by using innovations that have improved public safety and court administration while saving taxpayers money^[12].

Under Koschnick, Jefferson County has one used videoconferencing for cases involving mental health issues saving the county $30,000 a year on transporting patients from the Mendota Mental Institution in nearby Madison to the Jefferson County Circuit Court. Second, Koschnick has been able to use a rotational method for judges handling cases which has allowed Jefferson County to improve from 18th to 2nd in the State of Wisconsin for average case length as cases have been cut from 112 days on average in court to 77 days. This has been evident by aggressive prosecution of repeat drunk driving and domestic violence offenses, and eliminating pre-trial conferences for low level cases including misdemeanors and ordinance/traffic violations along with repeat drunk driving and domestic violence offenses^[12].

Abrahamson has been known to hold statewide listening sessions in all of Wisconsin's 72 counties listening to concerns, issues, and demands as part of an on-going process to improve the Wisconsin Judicial System. Abrahamson has been able to secure grant money to help Wisconsin experiment a new statewide model to expedite cases involving mental health issues in which cases like these are often backlogged in the court system causing delays for much needed treatment when necessary^[13]. Abrahamson since the fall has been actively been talking to court and law enforcement personnel and to newspaper editorial boards of the state's daily newspapers about her credentials for re-election.^[14]

But, with the global economic crisis putting a strain on state budgets and with the Governor of Wisconsin Jim Doyle ordering all state agencies to take a minimum ten percent budget cut including the judicial branch, court system administration may be a increasingly important issue. As many states are seeking money from non-profit organizations to help weather state budget storms, the Wisconsin Judicial System lost $326,000 in money that was supposed to be given to the State from The JEHT Foundation in wake of the Madoff ponzi scheme that has affected non-profits, well-known corporations, and wealthy investors^[15].

The $326,000 was given to the State of Wisconsin Judicial System to conduct a pilot program to study 19 county-level drug, alcohol and mental health programs in the state to determine whether a statewide alternative courts strategy was needed, however an another pilot program under the same foundation is not affected as another $247,000 was given to Wisconsin in which a six county pilot program is used to make sentences more fairer by providing judges more background information.^[15].

Judicial philosophies

The labels of judicial activist versus judicial restraint are likely to make an appearance in the 2009 campaign. Abrahamson's opponents in 1989 and 1999 called her an activist judge; especially in 1989 when she squared off against current Wisconsin Court of Appeals judge Ralph Adam Fine. Campaign mailers sent by Republican operatives first accused her of being an judicial activist.^[16]

During an interview in 2008 with the Capital Times, Abrahamson said, "When you say somebody's an activist judge, what you're really saying is I don't like that particular opinion. I think the people who use it think it's a slur and it will ultimately take on their connotation."^[16]

Some experts in the academic community think that terms used by the lay public to label judges have little value in distinguishing between the judicial philosophies espoused by various judges.^[16]

"They're not terms that I think have anything other than a created political meaning," University of Wisconsin-Madison political science Professor Charles Franklin said. " 'Activist judges' and 'strict constructionists' are both terms of political art."^[16]

Law enforcement

This Supreme Court election has been an avenue for many in the legal community to expose Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson on putting the rights of law enforcement at the expense of expanded Defendant's rights at the State Level^[17].

The term of Expanded Federalism has been noted as the Koschnick campaign has used this is as a difference to point out flaws on their part in Abrahamson's Judicial Philosophy. This has been noted in the case of Dave v. DuBois a past Supreme Court ruling in Wisconsin that had ruled with Abrahamson writing the opinion that it is unconstitutional for law enforcement to do the show procedure in apprehending alleged offenders of robbery and property crimes. Even though the method had been approved by the Supreme Court of the United States and Wisconsin Supreme Court in the past, the 2005 ruling in the case mandated that the procedure amounted to evidence that is inadmissible in court in this and future criminal cases^[17].

Many people in the law enforcement community in Wisconsin have said that decisions like Dave v. DuBois have constrained their ability to do their jobs effectively. Lt. Victor Wahl of the Madison Police Department has noted, “For years and until this summer, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has expressly chosen to interpret the Wisconsin constitution in a manner consistent with the U.S. constitution. This has facilitated consistency, and the creation of clear rules for officers to follow. Many states have chosen to interpret their state constitutions as providing additional protections beyond the U.S. constitution. This can create significant confusion for officers, as State courts are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court decisions if they base a decision on a state constitution.”^[17]

Tort reform

Randy Koschnick's philosophy of judicial restraint is evident in the campaign that Koschnick is pointing out differences between himself and his opponent especially on a key issue in which Shirley Abrahamson concurred in the majority opinion^[16].

In 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against the constitutionality of damage caps on medical malpractice lawsuits involving non-economic damages involving pain and suffering. In the case of Ferdon v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, ruled in a 4-3 decision that the caps unconstitutionally violated the state’s Equal Protection doctrine. The decision was seriously criticized by organizations like the Wisconsin Medical Society in which the ruling argued that the state would have an unfavorable regulatory climate for medical professionals citing that they would not have enough insurance to cover multi-million dollar damage awards for non-economic damages^[18].

The original law was inflation adjusted limiting the cap on non-economic damages to $350,000 when the bill was first signed into law. At the time the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the caps unconstitutional in 2006 the caps adjusted to inflation were over $500,000 for non-economic damages related to medical malpractice^[18].

Abrahamson written the majority opinion that ruled 4 to 3, but only later back in 2006 that Rep. Curt Gielow of Meqoun was able to get another bill signed into law to re-institute the damage caps that limited non-economic damages to $750,000^[18].

Involvement by partisan groups

The Isthmus has been reporting that a Verona based Barack Obama backers group that has been officially been linked with the Obama campaign may focus its energy towards the re-election efforts of Shirley Abrahamson^[19].

It is unknown yet on how involved the group will be during the campaign as if their possible involvement as a partisan group could raise questions in a non-partisan election^[19]

Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee

The Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee has been reinstated for the 2009 election to monitor attack ads and false statements. The WJCIC is asking both candidates to sign a clean campaign pledge administered to the committee's standards of judicial conduct^[20].

The WJCIC has been known highly during the 2008 election between Michael Gableman and Louis Butler in a election that was marked by constant attack ads.^[20].

Abrahamson endorsements

Abrahamson has won key endorsements from some well-known Republicans, including Sue Ann Thompson wife of the legendary Wisconsin Governor and former Federal Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, former Wisconsin Governor Scott McCallum, former Nixon era Defense Secretary and US Congressman Mel Laird, and prominent GOP fundraiser and owner of the Kohler Corporation Herbert Kohler^[21].

Mrs. Thompson. the former First Lady of Wisconsin, said: "As a life-long Republican, I have no interest in judges who are partisan, one way or the other. I look for judges who have support as diverse as the people of this state and who understand the need for fairness, balance, and independence. That's why, once again, I'm supporting the chief justice's re-election."^[21]

Former Republican Gov. Scott McCallum and former first lady Laurie McCallum stated in their endorsement: "The chief justice's name is synonymous with independence, integrity, and excellence, and she deserves re-election."^[21]

Former Defense Secretary Laird said: "I've known Shirley for 30 years. She's everything Wisconsin wants from its public officials and, particularly, its judges. She's independent, tough-minded, hard working, and, above all else, fair. She's committed to the people of this state and its values."^[21].

One of the heirs of the Kohler Corporation and top GOP Donor Kohler calls Abrahamson "an outstanding justice committed to a fair, impartial, neutral, nonpartisan Wisconsin judiciary."

This is evidenced by Abrahamson's wide reaching support as the Chief Justice as Abrahamson is winning endorsements from all spectrums of the political aisle including the AFL-CIO and Wisconsin Lieutenant Governor Barbara Lawton^[21].

State resources used for staffing?

On January 22, 2009, Republican State Representative Steve Nass (31st-District-Whitewater) issued a complaint to the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Carolyn "Biddy" Martin to disallow the law school from posting an advertisement on the Law School's website issued by campaign staffer Stephanie Biese that in turn was submitted to Dean for Career Services Jane Heymann to solicit interns to work on the Chief Justice's campaign.^[22]

Nass's complaint is based on state laws that prohibit campaigns that use state resources including judicial campaigns to leverage for campaign staff, donations, or anything of what is considered to be tangible value that would give the campaign an advantage^[22].

The disputed advertisement says:

Internship in Election Campaign for Chief Justice Abrahamson

You can get involved in the biggest electoral race this Spring!

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson is looking for interns to ensure her victory! After 33 years on the court, the Chief Justice is running for re-election. You can be a part of her team! This is your chance to learn more about elections and gain valuable political contacts. Get involved in finance and fund raising, community outreach, phone banking, canvassing and get out the vote operations. Come work for us NOW! Hours are flexible, 10-12 each week, office is very close to the Capitol. Join the Chief this spring, work for the campaign...

Call the office at (608) 222-8806 or email resume to stephanie.biese@gmail.com Submitted by Jane Heymann, Assistant Dean for Career Services on January 20, 2009 11:42 am This article appears in the categories: Career Services, Student Job Postings

Representative Nass asked for a meeting with Chancellor Biddy Martin to remedy the situation. Also, Representative Nass's office may pursue further action including a complaint to the Wisconsin Judicial Commission for a possible violation of judicial canons in addition to a possible complaint to the Government Accountability Board^[22].

Campaign fundraising

The Wisconsin State Supreme Court race has been a lopsided race on the fundraising element as Chief Justice Abrahamson has already raised over $1 million dollars in the past year as the January reporting deadline came for candidates running for Wisconsin Supreme Court^[23].

Randy Koschnick has already raised only $45,000 on hand which Abrahamson has Koschnick outnumbered^[24].

Abrahamson contributions questioned

On February 12, 2009, the Associated Press reported that Justice Abrahamson has received more than $30,000 since August 2008 from attorneys with cases currently pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In one medical malpractice case alone before the state's highest court, three attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the particular cases donated $11,500 to Abrahamson campaign. Justice Abrahamson has not refused the money from the attorneys on any of these cases, or even disclosed it to the other parties.^[25]

This report has drawn ire from the Koschnick campaign, which referred to the revelations as "shocking"^[26] and also accusing the Abrahamson campaign of not recusing herself from the cases that are currently open in the court and refusing to disclose the donations to other parties involved in the case. This has been noted as attorneys from Brookfield based Cannon and Dunphy has donated over $11,500 in which their firm will argue a medical malpractice case before the court on March 5, despite an appeal from her the Koschnick Campaign that she return the cash or recuse herself from the case.^[27]

Abrahamson when confronted with the report said to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel after the February 24, 2009 Dane County Bar Association Debate that she has been an impartial justice on the court for 32 years and has broad support, having raised more than $1 million through Feb. 2 from more than 5,000 contributors. The average contribution is about $250, she said.^[27]

"The antidote to anyone buying you, or buying a campaign or buying a judicial vote, is to get small contributions from diverse groups, so you are beholden to everyone in the state and you are not beholden to any single group," Abrahamson also said^[27]

Abrahamson also told JS Online that any lawyers appearing before the court who are worried about the potential impact of campaign donations can file a motion asking her to step aside, Abrahamson said. There has been no request made in the malpractice case. The case involves what damages should be awarded a father who witnessed the death of his son during birth in 1998. ^[27]

Race Could Go Either Way

Polling done recently done by Public Opinion Strategies show the race for the State Supreme Court could go either way which was commissioned by the MacIver Institute. In a 500 person survey conducted on February 25 to 26, the poll shows that 45 percent of Wisconsin voters are undecided on the April Spring Supreme Court race with a margin of error of 4.38%. Despite the numbers show on the amount of definite voters will go 45 percent for Abrahamson to 13 percent for Koschnick shows still with the very large percentage of undecided voters will make the race a very competitive election^[28].

Law Enforcement Skepticism

In the last month, the Abrahamson camp has lost particular law enforcement endorsements especially from Sheriffs and District Attorneys across the State of Wisconsin as some have been very critical of Abrahamson over certain rulings involving criminal rights. Abrahamson has been losing a lot of support from active sheriffs in the out-state regions of Wisconsin especially in the North Central and Fox Valley regions^[29].

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, William Bablitch in the March 1, 2009 version of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel said when giving his endorsement for Circuit Judge Koschnick that: "I don't like the term soft on crime. But (Abrahamson) seems to be well out of the mainstream when it comes to criminal matters involving the criminal rights of defendants." Former Justice Bablitch served in the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 1983 to 2003 and mentioned this statement in the growing perceived criticisms from members of the law enforcement community on Chief Justice Abrahamson's stances on criminal defendant's rights^[30].

Criminal Defendants Rights

A major issue raised in the last two major debates was done on the part of Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick on Abrahamson and her past opinions on criminal defendants rights. During the last major debate held on March 11, 2009 sponsored by the Milwaukee Press Club, Judge Koschnick mentioned past criminal defendants rights cases during Abrahamson's long tenure that have raised more questions on how the average voter perceives Abrahamson when it comes to criminal defendants rights^[31].

Koschnick said during the Milwaukee Press Club debate that Abrahamson has "a predictable pattern" related to criminal cases. This has been noted as Abrahamson has written opinions on criminal rights cases in which has spurred a lot of criticism from major law enforcement organizations in Wisconsin. Koschnick further elaborated: "We looked at her cases going back to 2000, and in criminal cases in the Wisconsin Supreme Court since 2000, Justice Abrahamson has voted in favor of criminal defendants 60 percent of the time, which is a greater percentage in those types of cases than any other justice that has served with her," he said^[32].

During the debate Circuit Judge Koschnick mentioned cases like State v. DuBose in which Chief Justice Abrahamson has written the majority opinion that the "show" procedure which is used commonly to apprehend criminals in property crime cases^[33]. Another key case that was mentioned was the 2005 case of State v. Richard Moeck in which Chief Justice Abrahamson was the lead author of the majority opinion that stated Moeck could not be tried in a third trial over the double jeopardy clause in the US Constitution despite the prosecutor made a claim for a mistrial in order to be re-tried in a criminal case that resulted in Moeck being sentenced to 167 years in prison on a first degree sexual assault and robbery case in which the opinion Abrahamson wrote reversed his conviction^[33].

Third-party attack ad draws ire

Just until now, third party attack ads by third party organizations have been silent during the 2009 Wisconsin Supreme Court Election. Just recently, the Greater Wisconsin Committee issued an attack ad against challenger Randy Koschnick^[34].

The liberal interest group that has been labeled by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign as a "phony issue group", issued an ad attacking Koschnick as someone who has sided with "corporate special interests, the wealthy and powerful and against victims.‟^[34]

The Associated Press on March 25, 2009 reported that the GWC could not defend the accusations in the ad, reporting “Neither the ad nor the supporting material provided actual court rulings by Koschnick in which he sided with „corporate special interests, the wealthy and powerful and against victims.‟ ^[34]

The Koschnick campaign sharply repudiated the claims referencing Koschnick as a victim's rights advocate in which Koschnick is still the founder and moderator of the Jefferson County Victims Panel ^[34].

“By GWC‟s own admission their baseless smear of Judge Koschnick is unsupportable,” said Koschnick Campaign Adviser Seamus Flaherty in a campaign-issued press release after the ad launch. “But Justice Abrahamson signaled to GWC (Greater Wisconsin Committee) and other special interests that she'll hold her tongue as long as she can hold onto power. It's shameless.” ^[34]

In a March 12, 2009 interview with the Isthmus a weekly newspaper in Madison, that Justice Abrahamson was specifically asked "Will you denounce any outside group that makes untrue statements on your behalf or tries to sully your opponent?" Abrahamson declined to answer. In contrast, Judge Koschnick was asked the same question from the Isthmus and responded, “I don't want people lying about her. I would correct any misinformation" said Koschnick during his interview with the weekly newspaper ^[34]

2008 election

On April 1, 2008, Burnett County judge Michael Gableman defeated incumbent Justice Louis Butler in a fiercely contested race. For more information, see our page Wisconsin Supreme Court elections (2008).

2007 election

On April 3, 2007, Washington County Circuit Court Judge Annette Ziegler soundly defeated Madison Area Immigration attorney Linda Clifford by a sizeable 2 to 1 margin by taking 65 out of Wisconsin's 72 counties including Milwaukee County^[35]. The race was a open seat due to the retirement of Jon Wilcox.

Voters in 2007 soundly rejected Clifford due to not having any prior judicial experience to serve on the state's highest court and also on negative advertising done by her campaign that attacked Ziegler despite Clifford's campaign railed on Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce on attack ads pointed towards Clifford^[36]. Despite, Clifford won her home county Dane County by nearly 30,000 votes, Ziegler won in counties that played well for conservatives in the past and also in liberal counties of Wisconsin. Ziegler won in all the conservative strongholds including Green Bay, Appleton, Fond du Lac, and Oshkosh. Ziegler also won by close margins in virtually every swing region including Kenosha, Racine, La Crosse, Eau Claire, Janesville, and Beloit^[35]. Also, Ziegler won Milwaukee County by over 10,000 votes^[35].

Ziegler had a broad appeal with independent, conservative and moderate voters that helped in her victory while Clifford was identified with many liberal voters^[36].

2007 Supreme Court Election Results

• Annette Ziegler 487,422 58.60%
• Linda Clifford 342,371 41.10%

See also

• Wisconsin Supreme Court

References

v • d • e Wisconsin Supreme Court Current Chief: Abrahamson • Bradley • Crooks • Gableman • Prosser • Roggensack • Ziegler Former Sykes • Wilcox • Butler

v • d • e Partisan and non-partisan elections of state Supreme Court justices Alabama elections • Arkansas elections • Georgia elections • Idaho elections • Illinois elections • Kentucky elections • Louisiana elections • Michigan elections • Minnesota elections • Mississippi elections • Montana elections • Nevada elections • New Mexico elections • North Carolina elections • North Dakota elections • Ohio elections • Oregon elections • Pennsylvania elections • Texas elections • Washington elections • West Virginia Supreme Court elections • Wisconsin elections 2010 elections • 2009 results • 2009 elections • 2008 elections • 2008 results