Wisconsin Supreme Court

Wisconsin Supreme Court
Court Information
Justices: 7
Founded:
Location:
Salary
Associates: $196,102
Judicial Selection
Method: Nonpartisan election of judges
Term: 10 years
Active justices
{{{Officeholders}}}

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is the highest appellate court in the state of Wisconsin. Seven justices, selected in nonpartisan elections for 10-year terms, sit on the state's court of last resort. The court has jurisdiction over all other Wisconsin courts and can also hear original actions.

Justices

While justices are selected in nonpartisan elections, a party identification is provided if a justice is generally associated with a political party. Following the death of Justice N. Patrick Crooks, there is one vacancy on the court.

Judicial selection

The court is composed of seven justices who are elected to 10-year terms in statewide, nonpartisan elections. Only one justice may be elected in any year. In the event of a vacancy on the court, the governor has the power to appoint an individual to the vacancy, but that justice must then stand for election in the first year where no other justice's term expires.

Qualifications

Per 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
• 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 declines, in which case the role passes 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.

Impact of chief justice amendment

See also: Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Amendment, Question 1 (April 2015)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Amendment, also known as Question 1, was on the April 7, 2015 ballot in Wisconsin as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure provided for the election of the Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice by a majority of the justices serving on the court. The chief justice chosen by the court would serve a two-year term.

Before Question 1's passage, the Wisconsin Constitution mandated that the chief justice be appointed based on seniority from the pool of seven justices sitting on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, at the time, had served as the court's chief justice since 1996. She was considered a liberal, but the court majority was considered conservative, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Opponents argued that the amendment was a political attack on Chief Justice Abrahamson and that the seniority method was more democratic because it allowed the justice who had been elected by voters the most times to be chief justice, while supporters contended the majority-vote system was more democratic because the justices would decide who would be the head of the court, thereby decreasing conflict among the justices.

History of amendment

An effort to change chief justice selection from seniority to a vote of fellow justices began with Sen. Tom Tiffany and Rep. Rob Hutton, who proposed joint resolutions in the state senate and assembly in October 2013. Both measures proposed a two-year term for chief justices with a limit of three terms. Sen. Mary Lazich's amendment removed the three-term limit and 2013 Senate Joint Resolution 57 was passed.. Amendments referred by the legislature must pass two successive sessions of the legislature, which was achieved when Senate Joint Resolution 2 was passed in January 2015. The measure titled Question 1 will appear on the April 7 ballot.

The last effort to change the seniority system on the court happened in 1985 with a proposal by state Sen. Gary George to allow justices to elect their chief. George sponsored 1985 Senate Resolution Joint Resolution 80, which called for election of the chief to a four-year term by fellow justices. This proposed amendment did not pass through the senate and the effort was left aside until 2011. Sen. Rich Zipperer and Rep. Tyler August proposed joint resolutions in the senate and assembly, respectively, calling for election of a chief justice following the inauguration of any new justice. Both resolutions failed to pass and August's 2012 resolution also failed to make it out of the state house.

Federal lawsuit by Abrahamson

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 term expired in 2019 or 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, which would have prevented a vote to remove her as chief. Judge James Peterson rejected the request for a temporary restraining order on April 9, opting 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, which is a requirement of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 65.

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."

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.

Caseloads

Fiscal Year	Filings	Dispositions
2014	792	860
2013	807	732
2012	784	824
2011	809	681
2010	717	762
2009	777	740
2008	824	812
2007	810	826

Elections

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 Patience Roggensack      Vince Megna      Ed Fallone

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 David T. Prosser         Joel Winnig         JoAnne Kloppenburg         Marla J. Stephens

2009
Candidate Incumbent Election % Shirley Abrahamson A Yes 59.6% Randy Koschnick No 40.2%

2008
See also: State Supreme Court elections, 2008 Incumbent Louis Butler was defeated by challenger Michael Gableman. Wisconsin Supreme Court 2008 General election results Candidates Votes Percent Louis Butler n/a n/a Michael Gableman n/a n/a

Margin of victory analysis

A University of Minnesota analysis of supreme court races in Wisconsin found that incumbents were defeated in only six of 95 re-election campaigns between 1852 and 2011. The following table details the margins of victory for supreme court races dating back to 2005:

Court race competitiveness, 2005-2013
Year	Winning candidate	Ideological lean	Percent of vote	Losing candidate	Ideological lean	Percent of vote	Margin of victory	Majority
2013	Patience Roggensack (incumbent)	Conservative	57.5%	Ed Fallone	Liberal	42.5%	15%	4-3
2011	David T. Prosser (incumbent)	Conservative	50.2%	Joanne Kloppenburg	Liberal	49.7%	0.5%	4-3
2009	Shirley Abrahamson (incumbent)	Liberal	59.6%	Randy Koschnick	Conservative	40.2%	19.4%	4-3
2008	Michael Gableman	Conservative	51.1%	Louis Butler (incumbent)	Liberal	48.5%	2.6%	4-3
2007	Annette Ziegler	Conservative	58.6%	Linda M. Clifford	Liberal	41.1%	17.5%	4-3
2006	N. Patrick Crooks (incumbent)	Liberal	99.4%	Write-in	-	0.6%	98.8%	4-3
2005	Ann Walsh Bradley (incumbent)	Liberal	99.6%	Write-in	-	0.4%	99.2%	4-3

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.

The following table lists all seven Wisconsin Supreme Court justices and their ideology scores:

State Supreme Court Ideology
State	Justice	Ideology Score
Wisconsin	Shirley Abrahamson	-1.29
Wisconsin	Ann Bradley	-0.39
Wisconsin	Patrick Crooks	0.59
Wisconsin	Patience Roggensack	0.67
Wisconsin	Annette Ziegler	1.25
Wisconsin	David Prosser	0.77
Wisconsin	Mike Gableman	1.35

Ethics

Judicial conduct

The Code of Judicial Conduct was first adopted by the state supreme court on November 14, 1967, effective January 1, 1968. It was amended in 1974, 1977, 1978, and 1979. There are five main sections of the code:

“

A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently. A judge shall so conduct the judge's extra-judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations. A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate political activity.

”

Read more of the Code of Judicial Conduct here.

Removal of justices

Justices may be removed in one of 3 ways:

• They may be impeached, with the senate acting as the court for the trial of impeachment.
• They may be removed by address of both houses of the legislature if two-thirds of each house agree. The justice must be given a copy of the charges and is able to be heard.
• They may be recalled.

Financial disclosure

See also: Center for Public Integrity Study on State Supreme Court Disclosure Requirements

In December 2013, the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) released a study on disclosure requirements for state supreme court judges. According to their website, CPI's purpose is "[t]o serve democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of public trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism." Analysts from the Center reviewed the rules governing financial disclosure in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as personal financial disclosures for the previous three years. The study gave 42 states and Washington, D.C., failing grades. Wisconsin earned a grade of F in the study. No state received a grade higher than "C." The study also reported 35 instances of questionable gifts, investments overlapping with caseloads, and similar potential ethical quandaries, along with 14 cases in which justices participated although they or their spouses held stock in the company involved in the litigation.

Notable decisions

• 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)

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, they decided to keep the current system for 5 years, and then decide whether 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 is one of eight states that use the seniority system to select chief justices for their supreme courts. 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 and a 1977 amendment allows the longest-serving justice to decline the chief justice's office.

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-present
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.

Public funding debate

The Democracy Trust Fund was passed with Act 89 and Act 216 in 2009, and took effect on May 1, 2010. The fund provided public funding to supreme court candidates who applied and qualified for the grants. Money was collected with a voluntary $3 dollar check off on state tax returns, which would not decrease the amount of a tax refund or increase taxes owed by the individual. The amounts of the grants were $150,000 for candidates qualifying for the primary, and $300,000 for the general.

In 2011, the Democracy Trust Fund was canceled, along with the other public financing program in the state, the Wisconsin Election Campaign Fund. This change was a part of the 2011-2013 budget bill signed by Governor Scott Walker. Walker had proposed changing the public financing programs to "add-on" donations. Donations of this kind already exist on tax returns, where tax payers can choose to donate to endangered species or to cancer research, for example. These donations do decrease the tax refund or increase the amount of taxes owed. Kevin Kennedy, the executive director of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, speculated that this change would decrease donations from about $200,000 per year to somewhere between $10,000 and $30,000. The state legislature's Joint Finance Committee instead decided to get rid of the campaign financing programs altogether. There is now no public financing of campaigns for any Wisconsin candidates.

Published study

The idea of public funding for court races goes back to at least 2000. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, a study sponsored by the nonpartisan group Wisconsin Citizen Action found that nearly 75% of the high court's cases from 2000 to 2010 involved at least one campaign contributor, although there was no connection found between donations and court decisions. Carolyn Castore of Wisconsin Citizen Action applauded the move towards public-funded elections back when the Democracy Trust Fund was being created, saying, "In an effort to clean up the way Supreme Court races are funded, the committee has taken a giant step towards ensuring the impartiality and independence of the Wisconsin Supreme Court."

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