Federal lawsuit to block implementation of Wisconsin Question 1 (2015)

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, along with five registered voters, filed a federal lawsuit on April 8, 2015, unsuccessfully seeking to block implementation of an approved amendment to the state constitution that changed how the chief justice was selected. Federal Judge James D. Peterson, on July 31, 2015, ruled in favor of the defendant's request for a dismissal. Peterson concluded that there was no compelling reason for federal courts to intervene on a state amendment interpreted by voters.

Timeline:

• Question 1, approved on April 7, changed chief justice selection from a seniority system to a process where justices choose a chief for a two-year term. The lawsuit, filed with the U.S. District Court for Western Wisconsin, argued that Abrahamson's rights to due process and equal protection were abridged by the amendment. Her filing sought to block application of the amendment until her then-current term expired in 2019 or until she left office prior to that year. Abrahamson filed the suit against the six members of the court, Secretary of State Doug La Follette (D) and State Treasurer Matt Adamczyk (R).

The filed complaint stated:

“	Should the new method of selecting a chief justice be put into immediate effect before the expiration of Chief Justice Abrahamson’s current term and a new chief justice selected, the term of the current, elected chief justice will be disrupted, her constitutionally protected interest in the office of chief justice will be impaired, the votes of her supporters will be diluted and the results of the 2009 election undone long after-the-fact, while the Wisconsin court system’s leadership will become unsettled. The retroactive application of the new amendment raises profound issues of Due Process and Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.	”
—Shirley Abrahamson et al. v. Department of Administration

The five registered state voter plaintiffs all listed the following as their complaint:

“	The challenged amendment if construed as applicable to Chief Justice Abrahamson and given retroactive effect dilutes the value of his vote and upsets his settled expectations by limiting the term of the candidate he successfully supported in the 2009 election.	”
—Shirley Abrahamson et al. v. Department of Administration

• Abrahamson, who served as chief justice from 1996 until fellow justices voted for her replacement on April 29, also sought a restraining order against her fellow justices. The request for the restraining order—which would have prevented a vote to remove Abrahamson as chief—was rejected by Judge James Peterson on April 9 after Peterson opted to wait until a hearing on April 21 to evaluate Abrahamson's filing in light of testimony from defendants. Abrahamson and other plaintiffs did not contact the defendants about the restraining order application prior to the filing, as Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) requires.

Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley decided to defend herself in the lawsuit, breaking with her five colleagues. The other five justices were defended by former Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John, who was paid $300 an hour by the state, although his contract was capped at $100,000.

• On April 21, Judge Peterson declined to block the amendment from going into effect while the lawsuit was pending. He claimed there would be no "irreparable harm" if Abrahamson was temporarily removed from her position. However, he warned the other justices not to replace her too quickly, saying, "The state would be well-served to have as few changes in chief justice as possible." On May 15, the judge refused to fulfill a request from Abrahamson to stop the court from electing a new chief justice. Peterson contended that recently elected Chief Justice Patience Roggensack had not proposed any radical changes to the court's structure; thus, there would be no harm in allowing Roggensack to be chief justice while the case moved forward.

• On July 31, 2015, Judge Peterson ruled in favor of the defendant's request for a dismissal. Peterson concluded that there was no compelling reason for federal courts to intervene on a state amendment interpreted by voters. In his ruling, Peterson stated:

“	Constitutional provisions are drawn with broad strokes ... There is no requirement that a state, in restructuring its government or the powers and duties of its officials by means of a constitutional amendment, do so with super-clarity to protect the interests of the officials or voters whose interests might be impaired. Unless its actions are plainly unconstitutional, Wisconsin has the authority and autonomy to restructure its government without interference from the federal government.	”
—Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, (2015)

Responses

Brandon Scholz, an organizer of the pro-amendment group Vote Yes for Democracy, made the following statement in response to the lawsuit:

“

I find it surprising that someone who has served as long as Justice Abrahamson has, for what would appear to be self-serving reasons, files the lawsuit in federal court against the will of the people.

”

Both the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Beloit Daily News called on Abrahamson to drop the lawsuit. The Capital Times editorial board, on the other hand, backed Abrahamson's lawsuit.

On April 14, 2015, members of Citizens for Responsible Government, a political action committee, asked the court to allow it to intervene in the case. The group argued against the validity of Abrahamson's lawsuit and sought to have the case thrown out. David Rivkin, an attorney for those asking to intervene, contended, "The office of chief justice of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin is not Justice Abrahamson's personal property. It belongs to the people of Wisconsin, and their will is clear."

See also

• Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Amendment, Question 1 (April 2015)
• Wisconsin judicial elections
• Campaign finance requirements for Wisconsin judicial elections
• Nonpartisan election of judges
• Gubernatorial appointment of judges
• Courts in Wisconsin
• News: Wisconsin senators seek end to Supreme Court elections, July 1, 2011

External links

• Official website of the Wisconsin Court System
• Wisconsin State Legislature, "Judicial Branch," 2011
• Government Accountability Board, "Elections & Voting"
• The Milwaukee Journal-Setinel, "Opinion: Should the state Supreme Court be appointed? Would it "fix" the court? Will it ever happen?" July 7, 2011