Patience Roggensack
Patience Drake Roggensack (also known as Pat) was a judge of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. She assumed office on August 1, 2003.
Roggensack first became a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court through a nonpartisan election. She was first elected to the court in 2003 to the seat vacated by Justice William A. Bablitch. On April 29, 2015, the other justices of the supreme court elected Roggensack as chief justice. She succeeded Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.[1] Roggensack was re-elected to additional two-year terms as chief justice on April 13, 2017, and on April 30, 2019.[2][3] She was succeeded by Annette Ziegler on May 1, 2021.[4] To read more about judicial selection in Wisconsin, click here.
In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, a study examining the partisan affiliation of all state supreme court justices in the country. As part of this study, we assigned each justice a Confidence Score describing our confidence in the degree of partisanship exhibited by the justices' past partisan behavior, before they joined the court.[5] Roggensack received a confidence score of Indeterminate.[6] Click here to read more about this study.
Biography
Roggensack received her B.A. in zoology from Drake University in 1962 and her J.D. from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1980. Before joining the state supreme court, Roggensack was a judge of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals from 1996 to 2003. Before that, she worked as an attorney in private practice from 1980 to 1996.[7][8]
Elections
2023
- See also: Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2023
Patience Roggensack did not file to run for re-election.
2013
- See also: Wisconsin judicial elections, 2013
Roggensack won re-election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2013, defeating Ed Fallone in the April 2 general election with 57.5 percent of the vote. In the February 19 primary, she received 63.9 percent of the vote.[9]
2003
Roggensack ran for election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2003. She defeated Ed Brunner, winning 51.1 percent of the vote.[10]
2002
Roggensack was re-elected to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.[7]
1996
Roggensack was elected to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.[7]
1995
Roggensack ran unsuccessfully for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, losing in the primary election.
Political donors
The following table includes the top five organizations that donated to Roggensack's campaigns for the Wisconsin Supreme Court according to publicly available campaign finance records.[11]
| Donor | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Wisconsin Republican Party | $35,873 |
| Wisconsin Realtor's Association | $8,625 |
| Wisconsin Medical Association | $5,000 |
| Republican Party of Milwaukee County | $2,500 |
| Wisconsin Builder's Association | $2,000 |
Analysis
Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship (2020)
Last updated: June 15, 2020
In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, a study examining the partisan affiliation of all state supreme court justices in the country as of June 15, 2020.
The study presented Confidence Scores that represented our confidence in each justice's degree of partisan affiliation. This was not a measure of where a justice fell on an ideological spectrum, but rather a measure of how much confidence we had that a justice was or had been affiliated with a political party. The scores were based on seven factors, including but not limited to party registration.[12]
The five resulting categories of Confidence Scores were:
- Strong Democrat
- Mild Democrat
- Indeterminate[13]
- Mild Republican
- Strong Republican
This justice's Confidence Score, as well as the factors contributing to that score, is presented below. The information below was current as of June 2020.
Patience Drake
Roggensack
Wisconsin
- Partisan Confidence Score:
Indeterminate - Judicial Selection Method:
Elected - Key Factors:
- Donated less than $2,000 to Democratic candidates
- Received donations from Republican-affiliated individuals or organizations
- Endorsed by Republican-affiliated individuals or organizations
Partisan Profile
Details:
Roggensack donated $50 to Democratic candidates. Her campagaign committee donated over $38,000 to Republican candidates. She received $35,873 from the Wisconsin Republican Party. Throughout her campaigns, she emphasized bipartisan support, highlighting her endorsements from sheriffs, law enforcement, first responders, and local government officials. Of the 53 sheriffs who endorsed Roggensack, 42 were Republicans and 11 were Democrats.
Other Scores:
In a 2012 study of campaign contributions, Roggensack received a campaign finance score of 0.67, indicating a conservative ideological leaning.
Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores (2012)
In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan ideology of state supreme court justices. They created a scoring system in which a score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology, while scores below 0 were more liberal.
Roggensack received a campaign finance score of 0.67, indicating a conservative ideological leaning. This was more conservative than the average score of 0.42 that justices received in Wisconsin.
The study was based on data from campaign contributions by the judges themselves, the partisan leaning of those who contributed to the judges' campaigns, or, in the absence of elections, the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study was not a definitive label of a justice, but an academic summary of various relevant factors.[14]
Noteworthy events
Amendment to change selection method of Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice
Voters in Wisconsin approved an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution known as Question 1, thereby changing how the supreme court chief justice is selected. State election officials certified results from the April 7 vote on April 29, 2015. That same day, the justices of the supreme court held a vote over email and voted to make Roggensack the chief justice, removing Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson from the position. Abrahamson had been serving as chief justice since 1996.[1]
On April 8, 2015, Abrahamson filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the amendment and any action to remove her from the chief justice's seat, arguing that her rights under the United States and Wisconsin constitutions would be violated if she were removed as chief justice before her term was set to end.[15]
Federal judge James D. Peterson issued a ruling on July 31, 2015, to dismiss the lawsuit. Peterson concluded that there was no compelling reason for federal courts to intervene on a state amendment interpreted by voters.[16]
Noteworthy cases
Wisconsin Supreme Court affirms agency authority to regulate state water resources (2021)
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on July 8 issued decisions in two environmental cases that had pitted the state legislature against the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in a disagreement over which government entity has the authority to regulate water pollution and irrigation practices. In both cases, the court held 4-2 that the DNR is authorized to restrict permits in order to protect the state’s water resources.[17][18][19]
The pair of cases, both initiated by Clean Wisconsin Inc. and Pleasant Lake Management District, centered on Wisconsin Act 21—a 2011 law that limits state agency authority by prohibiting state agencies from taking actions not specifically authorized by the state legislature.[17]
The first case concerned an administrative law judge's (ALJ) order that the DNR limit the size of a dairy herd causing nearby groundwater contamination. The DNR under then-Governor Scott Walker (R) did not enforce the ALJ’s directive, arguing that Act 21 prohibited the agency from carrying out the order.[17][18]
A Dane County Circuit Court judge in 2016 affirmed the DNR's authority to limit the size of the dairy herd to address water pollution. The DNR appealed the decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The current DNR under Governor Tony Evers (D) changed its position and had since claimed regulatory authority in the case.[17][18]
The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the circuit court's decision. Writing for the majority, Justice Jill Karofsky stated, "we conclude that an agency may rely upon a grant of authority that is explicit but broad when undertaking agency action, and such an explicit but broad grant of authority complies with [Act 21]."[17][18]
In the second case, challengers sued the DNR seeking stricter enforcement of regulations regarding large-scale water withdrawals for irrigation. Challengers claimed that the agency failed to consider the cumulative negative impact on water levels in nearby lakes and streams when it issued permits for nine high-capacity wells. As in the previous case, the DNR argued that Act 21 prevented the agency from considering the cumulative impact of the new wells.[17][19]
The Wisconsin Supreme Court again affirmed the circuit court's decision in the case, holding that the DNR erroneously claimed that it lacked regulatory authority. Writing for the majority, Justice Rebecca Dallet stated, "The DNR's authority to consider the environmental effects of proposed high capacity wells, while broad, is nevertheless explicitly permitted by statute."[17][19]
Chief Justice Annette Ziegler joined Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky in both majority opinions. Justice Brian Hagedorn did not participate in the case.[17][18][19]
Justices Rebecca Bradley and Patience Roggensack dissented, arguing in part: “Elevating its environmental policy preferences over the legislature's prerogative to reclaim its constitutional authority, the majority distorts the plain language of [Act 21] to achieve its own ends."[17][18][19]
John Doe investigations
Two John Doe investigations, beginning in 2010 and ending in 2015, were launched by Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm (D) into the activities of staff and associates of Gov. Scott Walker (R).[20] The Wisconsin Supreme Court officially put an end to the investigations in a 4-2 ruling on July 16, 2015, noting that "a state law outlawing such coordination was 'unconstitutionally overbroad and vague under the First Amendment'" and that "the special prosecutor's legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law."[21][22] Roggensack voted with and supported the majority opinion.[22]
State supreme court judicial selection in Wisconsin
- See also: Judicial selection in Wisconsin
The seven justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court are elected in statewide nonpartisan elections. Judges serve ten-year terms, and to remain on the court, they must run for re-election after their term expires. Only one seat may be elected in any year, and more than two candidates for each seat must file to have a primary.[23][24]
Qualifications
To serve on the supreme court, a judge must be:
- licensed to practice law in Wisconsin for a minimum of five years immediately prior to election or appointment
- under the age of 70.[25]
Chief justice
The chief justice of the court is selected by peer vote for a term of two years.
Vacancies
In the event of a vacancy on the court, the governor has the power and duty to appoint an individual to the vacancy. The governor screens judicial applicants using an advisory council on judicial selection. The council recommends three to five candidates to the governor, although the governor is not bound by their recommendations. The appointed justice must then stand for election in the first subsequent year in which no other justice's term expires.[24][23][26]
The map below highlights how vacancies are filled in state supreme courts across the country.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedncj - ↑ wn.com, "State Supreme Court reelects Roggensack as chief justice," April 13, 2017
- ↑ AP News, "Roggensack re-elected as Wisconsin Supreme Court chief," April 30, 2019
- ↑ WisPolitics.com, "Ziegler pledges fair, efficient Supreme Court as she preps for chief justice role," April 14, 2021
- ↑ We calculated confidence scores by collecting several data points such as party registration, donations, and previous political campaigns.
- ↑ The five possible confidence scores were: Strong Democrat, Mild Democrat, Indeterminate, Mild Republican, and Strong Republican.
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Wisconsin Court System, "Justice Patience Drake Roggensack," accessed August 22, 2014 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "bio" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Project Vote Smart, "Justice Patience Drake Roggensack (WI)"
- ↑ Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, "State of Wisconsin 2013-2014 Blue Book," accessed July 30, 2021
- ↑ 'Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, "State of Wisconsin 2003-2004 Blue Book," accessed July 30, 2021
- ↑ Follow the Money, "Patience Roggensack," accessed July 8, 2016
- ↑ The seven factors were party registration, donations made to partisan candidates, donations made to political parties, donations received from political parties or bodies with clear political affiliation, participation in political campaigns, the partisanship of the body responsible for appointing the justice, and state trifecta status when the justice joined the court.
- ↑ An Indeterminate score indicates that there is either not enough information about the justice’s partisan affiliations or that our research found conflicting partisan affiliations.
- ↑ Stanford University, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns," October 31, 2012
- ↑ Journal Sentinel, "Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson sues to keep her job for four more years," April 8, 2015
- ↑ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Judge dismisses Shirley Abrahamson suit to regain chief justice role," July 31, 2015
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.8 Wisconsin Public Radio, "Wisconsin Supreme Court Affirms DNR Authority To Restrict, Deny Farm Permits To Protect Water," July 8, 2021
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 Wisconsin Supreme Court, "Clean Wisconsin, Inc., Lynda Cochart, Amy Cochart, Roger DeJardin, Sandra Winnemueller and Chad Cochart v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources," July 8, 2021
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 Wisconsin Supreme Court, "Clean Wisconsin, Inc. and Pleasant Lake Management District v. Wisconsin Departement of Natural Resources," July 8, 2021
- ↑ United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Milwaukee Division, "Eric O’Keefe, and Wisconsin Club for Growth, Inc.," accessed February 23, 2015
- ↑ Wisconsin State Journal, "Supreme Court ends John Doe probe that threatened Scott Walker's presidential bid," July 16, 2015
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 Supreme Court of Wisconsin, "PETITION FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, APPEAL AND BYPASS TO THE SUPREME COURT FROM CIRCUIT COURT ORDER," July 16, 2015
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 National Center for State Courts, "Methods of Judicial Selection," accessed August 12, 2021
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 Wisconsin State Legislature, "Wisconsin Constitution," accessed September 19, 2014 (Article VII, Section 4: pg.10) Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "section4" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Wisconsin State Legislature, "Wisconsin Constitution," accessed September 19, 2014 (Article VII, Section 24: pg.11)
- ↑ Wisconsin State Legislature, "8.50 - Special elections," accessed April 19, 2023
Federal courts:
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: Eastern District of Wisconsin, Western District of Wisconsin • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: Eastern District of Wisconsin, Western District of Wisconsin
State courts:
Wisconsin Supreme Court • Wisconsin Court of Appeals • Wisconsin Circuit Courts • Wisconsin Municipal Courts
State resources:
Courts in Wisconsin • Wisconsin judicial elections • Judicial selection in Wisconsin
