Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“The fight to control Wisconsin’s highest court has thrust the Midwestern battleground into the national spotlight as Election Day closes in on a pivotal race that could dictate future abortion and redistricting measures — and have implications for 2024… The officially nonpartisan race for the open slot pits liberal Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Janet Protasiewicz against conservative Daniel Kelly, a former state Supreme Court justice who lost his seat in an election three years ago…
“The results are sure to have an impact on abortion access in Wisconsin. The procedure is subject to a near-total ban under a law that’s been on the books for nearly 175 years. But the outcome will also decide the bench’s makeup heading into the 2024 election cycle, where justices could once again be asked to rule on the results of the presidential contest… With just days to go before voters head to the polls, the contest is already the most expensive state judicial race in history.” Roll Call
The right supports Kelly, arguing that Protasiewicz has politicized the campaign.
“[Protasiewicz] has broken rules of decorum for judicial elections, giving voters an open-kimono tour of her political opinions, including explicit hints for how she would vote in coming cases. She told the New York Times that Act 10, the 2011 state law eliminating public unions’ ability to collectively bargain for benefits, was unconstitutional. Her campaign ads declare fealty to a woman’s right to choose…
“Judge Protasiewicz’s campaign has spent $10 million on advertising against Mr. Kelly thus far, while Mr. Kelly spent nothing—zero—until late March. His first ad buy came just weeks before the election, and it promotes justice over politics. In remarks at Wisconsin’s Northland Freedom Alliance, Mr. Kelly said ‘I don’t talk about my politics for the same reason I don’t campaign on who the Packers’ next quarterback should be. It has no effect on the job.’ He’s right—or should be.”
Collin Levy, Wall Street Journal
“Every judge has personal values, but a good judge knows that those values and personal beliefs need to be set aside when litigants and cases come before the court. Political considerations belong in city halls, county commissions, state capitals, and Congress. We elect state House members and senators to represent us, hash out political arguments, and make compromises. Voters should keep that in mind when electing their judges…
“[The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin] Scalia frequently voted on cases in a way that was contrary to his preferred political outcome. Indeed, Scalia believed it was imperative for judges to leave their political beliefs at home when considering legal arguments, once famously saying, ‘[t]he judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.’…
“In the past, I have referred to Dan Kelly as ‘Wisconsin’s Scalia.’… If voters want a dispassionate, neutral arbiter on the Wisconsin Supreme Court who will leave his political beliefs at home while hearing high-stakes cases, they should elect Dan Kelly.”
Matthew Fernholz, Washington Examiner
“In the lead-up to Tuesday’s election, Democrats have poured millions into the race to boost Protasiewicz. According to WisPolitics, Protasiewicz outraised Kelly ‘more than 5-to-1 in the latest reporting period, fueled by more than $8.8 million from the state Dem Party.’ Outside leftist mega-donors have also injected millions into the state to help the Wisconsin Democrat, with billionaire George Soros donating $1 million to the Democrat Party of Wisconsin last month…
“With so much at stake on Tuesday, prominent conservative figures should be using their platforms to shed a national spotlight on this critically important election. Instead, many are falling into the trap of prioritizing the next national election over state and local issues that can have lasting effects on the country.”
Shawn Fleetwood, The Federalist
The left opposes Kelly, arguing that his history of partisanship would bias his judgments.
The left opposes Kelly, arguing that his history of partisanship would bias his judgments.
“Protasiewicz has pushed the envelope for a judicial candidate by offering voters explicit declarations of her views. She has unequivocally affirmed her support for legal abortion, described the gerrymandered state legislative maps as ‘rigged,’ and declared that the signature legislation Walker passed to eviscerate the power of the state’s public-sector unions is unconstitutional…
“Kelly and other Republicans have argued that Protasiewicz’s candid expression of her ‘values’ renders her too partisan for a judicial position… But Kelly is, to say the least, an imperfect messenger for the argument that anyone else is too biased. He has been far more involved than Protasiewicz in direct partisan activities: Kelly has served as a paid legal adviser to the state’s leading anti-abortion group as well as to the state Republican Party.”
Ronald Brownstein, The Atlantic
“[Mr. Kelly] has previously written that abortion is ‘a policy deadly to children,’ and he spoke virtually at an event this month that featured a pastor who has advocated for creating an antiabortion militia and has called the murder of abortion providers ‘justifiable homicide.’ Mr. Kelly said afterward that he does not condone violence. Mr. Kelly also tweeted a video last week with Scott Presler, who planned ‘Stop the Steal’ rallies and was at the U.S. Capitol during the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021…
“This Editorial Board has argued for decades against the perverse practice of electing judges. Studies show judges hand out longer sentences as elections approach because they don’t want to be attacked as ‘soft on crime’ and that they are more likely to rule in favor of their donors during election years. A jurist’s job is to fairly apply the law, not to serve an ideology or donors. Governors should appoint justices, and legislatures should confirm them.”
Editorial Board, Washington Post
“A one-vote margin on the [Wisconsin] court held Donald Trump’s election challenge at bay. Now major election denial funders are getting involved… [Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein] gave millions to groups that amplified unfounded claims of voter fraud and stolen elections or worked to directly challenge election results… The same couple has spent more than $5 million so far backing [Kelly]…
“Former Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker appointed Kelly to the state Supreme Court in 2016 to complete the term of a retiring justice. After losing his 2020 election to stay on the court, Kelly advised the Wisconsin Republican Party in its efforts to create a fake elector scheme to challenge the state’s presidential election results…
“While the fight to restrict abortion has driven much of the messaging in the race, many observers have pointed out that democracy is also on the ballot.”
Akela Lacy, The Intercept
Startup makes mammoth meatball.
AP News
