Wisconsin Supreme Court

Wisconsin Supreme Court
Court Information
Justices: 7
Founded: 1848
Location: Madison
Salary
Chief: $154,000 Associates: $146,000
Judicial Selection
Method: Nonpartisan election of judges
Term: 10 years
Active justices
Ann Walsh Bradley Annette Ziegler Brian Hagedorn Jill Karofsky Patience Roggensack Rebecca Bradley Rebecca Dallet

Founded in 1848, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is the state's court of last resort and has seven judgeships. The current chief of the court is Patience Roggensack. In 2018, the court decided 707 cases.

As of August 2020, six judges on the court were elected in nonpartisan elections and one was appointed by a Republican governor.

Wisconsin has a divided government, and no political party holds a state government trifecta. A trifecta exists when one political party simultaneously holds the governor’s office and majorities in both state legislative chambers. As of February 27, 2021, there are 23 Republican trifectas, 15 Democratic trifectas, and 12 divided governments where neither party holds trifecta control.

In the 2020 election, Republicans had a net gain of two trifectas and two states under divided government became trifectas. Prior to that election, Wisconsin had a divided government. There were 21 Republican trifectas, 15 Democratic trifectas, and 14 divided governments.

Jurisdiction

See also: Judicial selection in Wisconsin

The supreme court has jurisdiction over original actions, appeals from lower courts, and regulation or administration of the practice of law in Wisconsin. Most commonly, the supreme court reviews cases that were appealed from the court of appeals.

The following text from Article VII, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution covers the organization and jurisdiction of the court:

“	Supreme Court: Jurisdiction (1) The supreme court shall have superintending and administrative authority over all courts. (2) The supreme court has appellate jurisdiction over all courts and may hear original actions and proceedings. The supreme court may issue all writs necessary in aid of its jurisdiction. (3) The supreme court may review judgments and orders of the court of appeals, may remove cases from the court of appeals and may accept cases on certification by the court of appeals.	”
—Wisconsin Constitution, Article VII, Section 3

Justices

Judge	Appointed By
Ann Walsh Bradley	Elected
Annette Ziegler	Elected
Rebecca Bradley	Gov. Scott Walker (R)
Patience Drake Roggensack	Elected
Rebecca Dallet	Elected
Brian Hagedorn	Elected
Jill Karofsky	Elected

Judicial selection

The court is composed of seven justices who are elected to 10-year terms in statewide, nonpartisan elections. Wisconsin holds state judicial elections every year, but in some years, no state supreme court justice's term will end and therefore no justice will be up for election. Only one seat may be elected in any year. In the event of a vacancy on the court, the governor has the power and duty to appoint an individual to the vacancy; that justice must then stand for election in the first subsequent year in which no other justice's term expires.

Qualifications

Under Article VII, Section 24 of the Wisconsin Constitution, to qualify for a judgeship in Wisconsin, a person 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.

For the ballot access and campaign finance requirements for candidates in Wisconsin, see Ballotpedia's Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Wisconsin.

Chief justice

Until 2015, the justice with the longest continuous service on the court served as the chief justice, unless that justice declined, in which case the role passed to the next senior justice of the court. A state constitutional amendment passed in April 2015 eliminated the seniority selection of the chief justice, opting for a vote by current justices. The justice selected by the court serves a two-year term as chief. Patience Roggensack is the current chief justice.

Elections and appointments

In Wisconsin, judges are appointed to fill midterm vacancies. If a vacancy occurs on or before December 1 of any year, newly appointed justices must run in a nonpartisan election the following spring to remain on the court. If a vacancy occurs after December 1 but before the following spring's election, the appointee must stand for election the next spring. After that, justices must run for re-election every ten years.

2020

Main article: Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2020

General election

General election for Wisconsin Supreme Court

Jill Karofsky defeated incumbent Daniel Kelly in the general election for Wisconsin Supreme Court on April 7, 2020.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Jill Karofsky (Nonpartisan)	55.2	855,573
		Daniel Kelly (Nonpartisan)	44.7	693,134
		Other/Write-in votes	0.1	990

---

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 1,549,697

Nonpartisan primary election

Nonpartisan primary for Wisconsin Supreme Court

Incumbent Daniel Kelly and Jill Karofsky defeated Edward A. Fallone in the primary for Wisconsin Supreme Court on February 18, 2020.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Daniel Kelly (Nonpartisan)	50.1	352,876
✔		Jill Karofsky (Nonpartisan)	37.2	261,783
		Edward A. Fallone (Nonpartisan)	12.7	89,184

---

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 703,843

2019

Main article: Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2019

General election

General election for Wisconsin Supreme Court

Brian Hagedorn defeated Lisa Neubauer in the general election for Wisconsin Supreme Court on April 2, 2019.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Brian Hagedorn (Nonpartisan)	50.2	606,414
		Lisa Neubauer (Nonpartisan)	49.7	600,433
		Other/Write-in votes	0.1	722

---

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 1,207,569

2018

Main article: Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2018

General election

General election for Wisconsin Supreme Court

Rebecca Dallet defeated Michael Screnock in the general election for Wisconsin Supreme Court on April 3, 2018.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Rebecca Dallet (Nonpartisan)	55.7	555,848
		Michael Screnock (Nonpartisan)	44.2	440,808
		Other/Write-in votes	0.1	829

---

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 997,485

Nonpartisan primary election

Nonpartisan primary for Wisconsin Supreme Court

Michael Screnock and Rebecca Dallet defeated Tim Burns in the primary for Wisconsin Supreme Court on February 20, 2018.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Michael Screnock (Nonpartisan)	46.3	247,582
✔		Rebecca Dallet (Nonpartisan)	35.8	191,268
		Tim Burns (Nonpartisan)	17.9	95,508
		Other/Write-in votes	0.1	622

---

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 534,980

2017

Main article: Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2017

Candidates

■ Annette Ziegler (Incumbent/Unopposed)

2016

Main article: Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2016

Candidates

■ JoAnne Kloppenburg
■ Rebecca Bradley

Kloppenburg and Bradley faced each other in the April 5 general election.

Defeated in primary

■ Martin Joseph Donald

Withdrawn

■ Claude Covelli

General election results

Wisconsin Supreme Court, Rebecca Bradley's Seat, 2016
Candidate	Vote %	Votes
Rebecca Bradley Incumbent	52.35%	1,024,892
JoAnne Kloppenburg	47.47%	929,377
Write-in votes	0.19%	3,678
Total Votes (100% Reporting)		1,957,947
Source: Wisconsin Government Accountability Board Official Results

Primary results

The primary election was held February 16, 2016.

Primary election
Ideology		Candidate	Percentage	Votes
	Liberal	Martin Joseph Donald	12.1%	68,746
	Liberal	JoAnne Kloppenburg	43.2%	244,729
	Conservative	Rebecca Bradley	44.7%	252,932
			Vote Total:	566,407

3474 of 3474 precincts reporting
Source: Wisconsin Government Accountability Board Official Results

2015

See also: Wisconsin judicial elections, 2015

 

General election, 2015
Candidate	Vote %	Votes
Ann Walsh Bradley Incumbent	58.1%	471,866
James Daley	41.9%	340,632
Total Votes		813,200

2013

See also: Wisconsin judicial elections, 2013

Candidate	Incumbency	Position	Primary Vote	Election Vote
RoggensackPatience Roggensack
FalloneEd Fallone	No		29.8%A	42.47%   A
MegnaVince Megna	No		6.3%

• Election history, 2006-2011 (click to expand)

  2011

  See also: Wisconsin judicial elections, 2011

  The following is a list of candidates for the Supreme Court 2011 election:

  Candidate	Incumbency	Position	Primary Vote	Election Vote
  KloppenburgJoAnne Kloppenburg	No	District IV		49.70%   A
  ProsserDavid T. Prosser   A	Yes			50.192%   A
  WinnigJoel Winnig	No
  StephensMarla J. Stephens	No

  2009

  Candidate	Incumbent	Seat	Election votes	Election %
  Shirley Abrahamson A	Yes		473,712	59.6%
  Randy Koschnick	No		319,706	40.2%

  2008

  See also: State Supreme Court elections, 2008

  Incumbent Louis Butler was defeated by challenger Michael Gableman.

  Candidate	Incumbent	Seat	Election votes	Election %
  Michael Gableman A	No		425,101	51.1%
  Louis Butler	Yes		402,798	48.5%

Caseloads

The table below details the number of cases filed with the court and the number of dispositions (decisions) the court reached in each year.

Wisconsin Supreme Court caseload data
Year	Filings	Dispositions
2018	737	707
2017	734	704
2016	642	600
2015	732	836
2014	792	860
2013	807	732
2012	784	824
2011	809	681
2010	717	762
2009	777	740
2008	824	812
2007	810	826

Noteworthy cases

The following are noteworthy cases heard before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. For a full list of opinions published by the court, click here. Know of a case we should cover here? Let us know by emailing us.

• Supreme Court overturns Wisconsin's stay-at-home order (Wisconsin Legislature v. Palm, et al., 2020AP765-OA)	Click for summary→
On May 13, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that Wisconsin Department of Health Services Secretary-designee Andrea Palm overstepped her authority when she extended the state's stay-at-home order through May 26 on behalf of Gov. Evers. The decision made Wisconsin the first state to have a stay-at-home order overruled by a court. On April 21, 2020, the Wisconsin State Legislature filed suit in the state supreme court against Wisconsin Department of Health Services executives Andrea Palm and Julie Willems Van Dijk, alleging that they exceeded their authority in issuing Emergency Order 28, which extended the state's stay-at-home order to May 26, 2020. The legislature asked the court to enjoin the state from enforcing the stay-at-home order. In a joint statement, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R) said, "The governor has denied the people a voice through this unprecedented administrative overreach. Unfortunately, that leaves the legislature no choice but to ask the Supreme Court to rein in this obvious abuse of power. Wisconsinites deserve certainty, transparency, and a plan to end the constant stream of executive orders that are eroding both the economy and their liberty even as the state is clearly seeing a decline in COVID infections." In the majority opinion, chief justice Patience Roggensack and justices Rebecca Bradley, Daniel Kelly, and Annette Ziegler wrote, "an agency cannot confer on itself the power to dictate the lives of law-abiding individuals as comprehensively as the order does without reaching beyond the executive branch's authority."

For more information on this decision, see: Wisconsin stay-at-home order lawsuit and supreme court decision, 2020 (Wisconsin Legislature v. Palm, et al.)

• Supreme Court rules legislature's lame-duck session was constitutional (League of Women Voters v. Tony Evers, 2019AP559)	Click for summary→
In a 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on June 21, 2019, that the state legislature’s December 2018 lame duck session was not unconstitutional. The League of Women Voters, plaintiffs in the case, had argued that the state’s constitution did not allow lawmakers to call an extraordinary session, making the December session and all actions resulting from it unconstitutional. Judge Jessica Bradley authored the court’s majority opinion, stating: “We hold that extraordinary sessions do not violate the Wisconsin Constitution because the text of our constitution directs the Legislature to meet at times as ‘provided by law,’ and Wis. Stat. § 13.02(3) provides the law giving the Legislature the discretion to construct its work schedule, including preserving times for it to meet in an extraordinary session." Judge Rebecca Dallet wrote a dissenting opinion: "The Legislature's ability to determine the rules of its proceedings pursuant to Article IV, Section 8 does not swallow up the meeting requirements of Article IV, Section 11 or allow it to wield unbridled power.” During the December 2018 session, Wisconsin lawmakers voted to check the ability of the governor to remove Wisconsin from a multi-state lawsuit to challenge the Affordable Care Act, limit early voting in Wisconsin, and give more power over the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation to state lawmakers. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) responded to the ruling: “The state constitution is clear. It limits when the legislature can meet to pass laws. Our framers knew that no good comes from lawmakers rushing laws through at the last minute without public scrutiny. The lame-duck session proves the framers were right. This was an attack on the will of the people, our democracy, and our system of government.” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald called the decision “common sense.” “The Court upheld a previously non-controversial legislative practice used by both parties for decades to enact some of the most important laws in the state,” they wrote.

• Supreme Court refuses to allow John Doe probe to restart (2015)      Judge(s):Michael Gableman, David Prosser, Patience Roggensack, Annette Ziegler (Three Unnamed Petitioners v. Gregory A. Peterson, 2013AP2504-W)	Click for summary→
On December 2, 2015, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reasserted and clarified its July decision that the John Doe investigations were unconstitutional. The court barred attorney Francis Schmitz from continued involvement in the case.

For more information on this decision, see Three Unnamed Petitioners v. Gregory A. Peterson

• Supreme Court halts John Doe investigation (2015)      Judge(s):David Prosser (Three Unnamed Petitioners v. Gregory A. Peterson, 2013AP296-OA)	Click for summary→
On July 16, 2015, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a 4-2 decision to officially halt the John Doe II investigation. The court combined three cases—Two Unnamed Petitioners v. Gregory A. Peterson and Francis D. Schmitz (Two Unnamed Petitioners); Three Unnamed Petitioners v. Gregory A. Peterson (Three Unnamed Petitioners); and Francis D. Schmitz v. Gregory A. Peterson (Schmitz v. Peterson)—into one, thereby simultaneously ruling on all three. In its ruling, the Supreme Court criticized Special Prosecutor Francis Schmitz's handling of the case and declared the actions of Chisholm and Schmitz were violations of the targets' First Amendment rights to political speech.

For more information on this decision, see Three Unnamed Petitioners v. Gregory A. Peterson

• Justice recuses himself from DUI case (2015)

Click for summary→

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser voluntarily recused himself from a case before the high court. Allegedly, Prosser contacted a lab that conducted tests on specimens in a drunk driving case and asked questions specifically related to the case. Judges are barred by a judicial code of conduct from seeking out evidence on their own; they must make decisions based upon the evidence presented at trial. In the case of appellate judges, they are bound to review only the record, which includes evidence presented at pre-trial evidentiary hearings or trial. The case is important because it has the possibility of settling the question of when analysts must testify in DUI cases. With Prosser out, there are only six justices left to hear the case, meaning the decision could be a tie. The state's intermediate appellate court affirmed the underlying conviction, but said that this particular question arises often enough that the supreme court should settle the matter. It is likely that Justice Prosser was not behaving shady. According to Maurer School of Law Professor Charles Geyh, “ Well-intentioned, justice-seeking judges sometimes let their curiosity get the best of them and initiate investigations on their own, even though they should know better — meaning that the conduct is not necessarily nefarious. ” —Charles Geyh, Law professor Prosser recused himself from the case on February 27, 2015. Articles: Journal Sentinel, "David Prosser turned sleuth in OWI case before high court," April 3, 2015 Channel 3000, "State high court judge may have broken rule by quizzing lab," April 4, 2015

• Wisconsin man's privacy not violated by GPS tracking (2013)	Click for summary→
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the police did not violate a man's privacy after installing a GPS tracker in his car without his knowledge. In 2007, James Brereton was a suspect in multiple burglaries in Walworth and Rock counties. Police impounded Brereton's vehicle during the course of investigating the crimes, and subsequently placed a GPS device in the car. Before placing the GPS in the vehicle, law enforcement sought and were granted a warrant from the Walworth County Circuit Court. Four days after the installation, Brereton was apprehended at a home that had just been burglarized, and incriminating evidence was found at the scene. Brereton challenged the use of the GPS, seeking to suppress evidence found as a result of its use. Brereton and his attorney contended that real-time tracking was not covered by the warrant. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals heard Brereton's challenge, but sided with law enforcement, noting that tracking is a reasonable execution of the warrant for GPS installation. On February 6, 2013, the supreme court upheld the lower appeals court's ruling; the decision was 6 to 1 in favor of law enforcement.

• Collective bargaining (2011)      Judge(s):Maryann Sumi	Click for summary→
In March 2011, Judge Maryann Sumi declared an injunction against publishing the Wisconsin Legislature's bill that eliminates collective bargaining for public employees. She found that legislators broke the state's Open Meetings Law, and therefore granted a restraining order against the Secretary of State's publishing of the bill. On May 26, 2011, Sumi struck down the legislative actions leading to the bill eliminating public employee collective bargaining on the grounds that it violated the state's Open Meetings Law. The state's Department of Justice and Department of Administration appealed the decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On June 14, 2011, the court overturned Sumi's ruling, saying in part that it had "usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the Legislature." Read the text of the Supreme Court's ruling here: State of Wisconsin vs. Fitzgerald et al (June 14, 2011)

• Menasha Corporation (2008)	Click for summary→
The court ruled in favor of Menasha Corp in 2008. The ruling involved the collection of sales tax on computer software purchased by Menasha Corp. State law exempts custom software from sales and use tax, but the Wisconsin Department of Revenue claimed that the software purchased by the company was not custom software even though Menasha paid $17 million to customize it. The Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission initially ruled in favor of the company, but the state then appealed that decision to the Dane County Circuit Court where Judge Steven Ebert overturned the appeals commission ruling. The nonpartisan group, Legislative Fiscal Bureau, speculated that the ruling could mean that the state would lose $300 million in sales tax refunds to companies which had already paid similar claims and in diminished sales tax collections.

• Access to government records cases	Click for summary→
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel v. Department of Administration. In 2009, the supreme court overturned a lower court ruling that said a collective bargaining agreement between a union and a state agency can forbid the agency from releasing names of public employees. WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex. In this June 2008 decision, the court ruled that three Wisconsin municipalities did not violate the Wisconsin Open Records Law when they failed to give a real estate listing service access to property assessment records in a computer database. The decision ran to 1,143 pages. State of Wisconsin v. Beaver Dam Area Development Corporation This 4-2 decision of the court from 2008 clarified when nominally private entities (in this case, the Beaver Dam Area Development Corporation) are subject to the public records and open meetings laws. Hempel v. City of Baraboo. In this 2005 decision, the court upheld a lower court order denying a records request made under the Wisconsin Open Records Law by Hal Hempel, a police officer of the Baraboo police department. Hempel sought records of an internal investigation conducted about allegations against him to the effect that he had harassed female officers in the department. The case centered on two key components of the Wisconsin Open Records law: Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) and Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(am) - and the statutory exceptions therein. Abrahamson dissented from the majority, and was joined by Bradley and Butler.

Historic cases

The Wisconsin state capitol in Madison, which houses the Wisconsin Supreme Court

20th Century

• Risser v. Klauser (1997)
• Libertarian Party of Wisconsin v. Thompson (1996)
• Thompson v. Benson (1996)
• State v. Mitchell (1992)
• State v. Stevens (1985)
• State v. Yoder (1971)
• State ex rel. Drankovich v. Murphy (1945)
• John F. Jelke Company v. Emery (1927)
• Wait v. Pierce (1926)
• Borgnis and others v. The Falk Company (1911)
• Nunnemacher v. State (1906)

19th Century

• The State ex rel. Attorney General v. Cunningham and The State ex rel. Lamb v. Cunningham (1892)
• State ex rel. Weiss and others vs. District Board, etc. (1890)
• Brown v. Phillips and others (1888)
• Motion to admit Miss Lavinia Goodell to the Bar of this Court and Application of Miss Goodell (1875 & 1879)
• Attorney General v. Chicago & Northwestern Railroad Company (1874)
• Whiting v. Sheboygan & Fond du Lac Railroad Company (1870)
• Gillespie v. Palmer and others (1866)
• In re Kemp (1863)
• Chamberlain v. Milwaukee and Mississippi Railroad (1860)
• Attorney General ex rel. Bashford v. Barstow (1856)
• In Re: Booth (1854)

Political outlook

See also: Political outlook of State Supreme Court Justices

In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan outlook of state supreme court justices in their paper, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns." A score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology while scores below 0 were more liberal. The state Supreme Court of Wisconsin was given a campaign finance score (CFscore), which was calculated for judges in October 2012. At that time, Wisconsin received a score of 0.42. Based on the justices selected, Wisconsin was the 11th most conservative court. The study was based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges, 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 rather an academic gauge of various factors.

History of the court

An appellate court system was created in the territory of Wisconsin in 1836. The circuit court judges would gather in Madison once a year as a "supreme court" to hear appeals of their own rulings. When Wisconsin became a state in 1848, the government decided to keep the current system for five years and then decide whether to create a separate supreme court. In 1852, the state legislature decided to establish the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The following year, three men were chosen as the first justices.

Wisconsin originally used the seniority system to select chief justices for the state supreme court. This selection method became part of the Wisconsin Constitution in 1889, when voters opted for seniority over a dedicated seat for the chief justice. The chief justice seat was established by the Wisconsin State Legislature in 1852 and lasted until the 1889 amendment. Wisconsin voters amended the constitution again in 1903 to expand the court to seven members. A 2015 amendment to the state constitution changed the method of chief justice selection from seniority to a vote of the justices.

Former justices

This is a chronological list of Wisconsin Supreme Court justices from 1848 to present. Click "show" to expand.
Justice	Years on Court
Alexander W. Stow	1848-1851
Levi Hubbell	1848-1853
Edward V. Whiton	1848-1859
Charles H. Larrabee	1848-1853
Mortimer M. Jackson	1848-1853
Wiram Knowlton	1850-1853
Timothy O. Howe	1851-1853
Samuel Crawford	1853-1855
Abram D. Smith	1853-1859
Orsamus Cole	1855-1892
Luther S. Dixon	1859-1874
Byron Paine	1859-1864; 1867-1871
Jason Downer	1864-1867
William P. Lyon	1871-1894
Edward G. Ryan	1874-1880
David Taylor	1878-1891
Harlow S. Orton	1878-1895
John B. Cassoday	1880-1907
John B. Winslow	1891-1920
Silas U. Pinney	1892-1898
Alfred W. Newman	1894-1898
Roujet D. Marshall	1895-1918
Charles V. Bardeen	1898-1903
Joshua E. Dodge	1898-1910
Robert G. Siebecker	1903-1922
James C. Kerwin	1905-1921
William H. Timlin	1907-1916
Robert M. Bashford	1908
John Barnes	1908-1916
Aad J. Vinje	1910-1929
Marvin B. Rosenberry	1916-1950
Franz C. Eschweiler	1916-1929
Walter C. Owen	1918-1934
Burr W. Jones	1920-1926
Christian Doerfler	1921-1929
Charles H. Crownhart	1922-1930
E. Ray Stevens	1926-1930
Chester A. Fowler	1929-1948
Oscar M. Fritz	1929-1954
Edward T. Fairchild	1930-1957
John D. Wickhem	1930-1949
George B. Nelson	1930-1942
Theodore G. Lewis	1934
Joseph Martin	1934-1946
Elmer E. Barlow	1942-1948
James Ward Rector	1946-1947
Henry P. Hughes	1948-1951
John E. Martin	1948-1962
Grover L. Broadfoot	1948-1962
Timothy Brown	1949-1964
Edward J. Gehl	1950-1956
George R. Currie	1951-1968
Roland J. Steinle	1954-1958
Emmert L. Wingert	1956-1959
E. Harold Hallows	1958-1974
William H. Dieterich	1959-1964
Horace W. Wilkie	1962-1976
Bruce F. Beilfuss	1964-1983
Leo B. Hanley	1966-1978
Connor T. Hansen	1967-1980
Robert W. Hansen	1968-1978
Thomas E. Fairchild	1957-1966
Myron Gordon	1962-1967
Nathan S. Heffernan	1964-1995
Roland B. Day	1974-1996
William G. Callow	1977-1992
John Coffey	1978-1981
Shirley Abrahamson	1979-Present
Louis J. Ceci	1982-1993
Donald W. Steinmetz	1980-2000
William A. Bablitch	1983-2003
Jon Wilcox	1992-2007
Janine P. Geske	1993-1998
Ann Walsh Bradley	1995-Present
N. Patrick Crooks	1996-2015
David T. Prosser	1998-2016
Diane S. Sykes	1999-2004
Patience Roggensack	2003-Present
Louis Butler	2004-2008
Annette Ziegler	2007-Present
Michael Gableman	2008-Present

Notable firsts

• Lavinia Goodell was a Janesville attorney and the first woman to apply for admission to the bar of the Wisconsin Supreme Court (at that time, practice before the state’s high court required admission to a separate bar). In the first case in 1875, her application was denied; in the second, following a legislative act that prohibited denial of bar admissions based on gender, she was admitted in 1879.

• Shirley Abrahamson was the first woman to serve on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and, subsequently, the first female chief justice.

Courts in Wisconsin

See also: Courts in Wisconsin

In addition to the federal courts in Wisconsin, there are two types of appellate courts, one general jurisdiction trial court, and one limited jurisdiction trial court. Their infrastructure and relationship are illustrated in the flow chart below.

The structure of Wisconsin's state court system.

Party control of Wisconsin state government

A state government trifecta is a term that describes single-party government, when one political party holds the governor's office and has majorities in both chambers of the legislature in a state government. A state supreme court plays a role in the checks and balances system of a state government. Republicans in Wisconsin gained a state government trifecta as a result of the 2010 elections, when the governorship and both legislative chambers switched to Republican control. Republicans also had trifectas in the state in 1995 and 1998. Democrats held a trifecta following the 2008 elections. The table below shows state government trifectas in Wisconsin from 1992 to 2019.

Wisconsin Party Control: 1992-2021
Two years of Democratic trifectas  •  Ten years of Republican trifectas
Scroll left and right on the table below to view more years.

Year	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	00	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21
Governor	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	D	D	D
Senate	D	R	R	R	D	D	R	D	D	D	D	R	R	R	R	D	D	D	D	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R
House	D	D	D	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	D	D	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R

State profile

Demographic data for Wisconsin
	Wisconsin	U.S.
Total population:	5,767,891	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	54,158	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	86.5%	73.6%
Black/African American:	6.3%	12.6%
Asian:	2.5%	5.1%
Native American:	0.9%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0%	0.2%
Two or more:	2.1%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	6.3%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	91%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	27.8%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$53,357	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	15%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Wisconsin. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Wisconsin

Wisconsin voted for the Democratic candidate in four out of the five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016.

More Wisconsin coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Wisconsin
• United States congressional delegations from Wisconsin
• Public policy in Wisconsin
• Influencers in Wisconsin
• Wisconsin fact checks
• More...

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Wisconsin Supreme Court. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Wisconsin Supreme Court - Google News

See also

• Wisconsin
• Courts in Wisconsin
• Judicial selection in Wisconsin

External links

• Wisconsin Court System, "Supreme Court"
• Wisconsin Blue Book, "Supreme Court Biographies," 2005-2006
• Wisconsin Court System, "Supreme court opinions: Oral arguments"
• Wisconsin Court System, "Internal Operating Procedures of the Supreme Court"
• Wisconsin Government Accountability Board
• The Lakeland Times, "Supreme Court divisions can be traced to appointments, not money," July 8, 2011
• Madison.com, "Justices decide against opening deliberations to public," September 16, 2011
• The ABA Journal, "The Badgering State: Wis. Battles over Worker’s Rights and Skirmishes in the Supreme Court," Feb 1, 2012
• Wisconsin Civil Justice Council