DOCSLIB.ORG

The Supreme Court a Guide to the Candidates and a Pending Constitutional Amendment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Supreme Court a Guide to the Candidates and a Pending Constitutional Amendment Vol. 83, Number 2 | February 2015 What’s On The Ballot? The Supreme Court A Guide to the Candidates and a Pending Constitutional Amendment Voters will make two important decisions this spring affecting the Wisconsin Supreme Court. First, they will elect a supreme court justice to serve for the next ten years; Justice Ann Walsh Bradley is being challenged by Judge James P. Daley. Second, they will vote on a constitutional amendment that would change how the court’s chief justice is chosen. This report provides backgrounds on the candidates, in their own words, as well as arguments for and against the constitutional amendment. This April, voters will make two It wasn’t until 1852 that the state Composition and Selection decisions affecting the Wisconsin legislature voted to create a separate Composition. The court has Supreme Court. They will elect a supreme court, and in 1853, Wiscon- seven justices, each elected for a supreme court justice to serve for sin elected its fi rst justices. 10-year term. The table on page 2 the next ten years; either Justice SUPREME COURT lists the court’s current members, the Ann W. Bradley or Judge James year their tenures began, and when P. Daley (see page 5). They will The supreme court is the state’s their current terms end. highest court; that means for state also vote on a state constitutional The longest-serving justice issues, its rulings are fi nal. Almost amendment that would change the serves as chief justice, though that all of the court’s cases are appeals way the court’s chief justice is cho- could soon change (see page 7). from lower courts (typically, courts sen (see page 7). The current chief, Shirley Abraham- of appeals), but it can hear original Surprisingly, Wisconsin has not son, recently passed Orasmus Cole actions as well. always had a supreme court. When Wisconsin became the nation’s 30th In addition to ruling on cases, the Also in this issue: state in 1848, the constitutional Wisconsin Supreme Court adminis- convention simply preserved the ters the state judicial system. The Supreme Court Candidates (page existing territorial court system. court appoints the director of state 5) • Spring election: Constitutional The state’s circuit court judges met courts and directs the Board of Bar Amendment (page 7) • Cigarette in Madison each year to hear ap- Examiners, which regulates lawyers Smuggling • An Evolving Legisla- peals of their own decisions. in the state. ture • Manufacturing in Wisconsin wis tax A service of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance Table 1: Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Justices increased that number to fi ve, and another in 1903 raised it to the current seven. Tenure Term Term length has also changed over the years. Justice Began Ends Residence* Shirley S. Abrahamson 1976 2019 Madison Originally, justices served six-year terms. The 1877 Ann Walsh Bradley 1995 2015 Wausau amendment increased that to 10 years, the current term length. N. Patrick Crooks 1996 2016 Green Bay David T. Prosser 1998 2021 Appleton Terms for appointed justices have also increased. Patience D. Roggensack 2003 2023 Madison Originally, an appointed justice would serve until the Annette Kingsland Ziegler 2007 2017 West Bend next available spring election, and then, if elected, Michael J. Gableman 2008 2018 Webster would serve for the remainder of the retired justice’s *At time of fi rst election or appointment term. A 1953 amendment changed that so now ap- pointed justices stand for a full 10-year term. (1855-1892) as the longest serving supreme court 2013-14 Session Review justice. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has discretion Selection. Justices are elected in nonpartisan over which cases it hears. Four or more justices spring elections held on the fi rst Tuesday in April. must approve a petition for original jurisdiction in Terms begin in August following the election. If a case, and three or more justices are required to more than two candidates run, a primary election is grant appellate jurisdiction to review a decision of held on the third Tuesday in February. Elections are a lower court. staggered so that no two justices face reelection in Cases. By at least one metric, the 2013-14 the same year. session, which ran from September 2013 through If there is a midterm opening, the governor ap- August 2014, was unusually busy. The court re- points a replacement, who serves until the next avail- solved 122 cases, up from 98 in 2012-13. The court able spring election. For example, Governor James Doyle (D) appointed Louis Butler in 2004. Because seats for other justices were up for reelection in 2005, THE WISCONSIN 2006, and 2007, Butler did not stand for election until TAXPAYER 2008, when he was defeated. February 2015 Vol. 83 Number 2 Initial appointment to the bench, rather than Publication Number USPS 688-800 election, is rather common. Of 75 justices who have Periodical postage paid at Madison, Wisconsin served since 1853, 45 (60%) were fi rst appointed. Subscription Price: $17.97 per year However, only two current justices were initially ap- Published each month, except July, by the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, pointed: Shirley S. Abrahamson by Governor Patrick 401 North Lawn Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53704-5033 J. Lucey (D), and David T. Prosser, Jr. by Governor Postmaster: Send address changes to The Wisconsin Taxpayer, Tommy Thompson (R). 401 North Lawn Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53704-5033 Phone: 608.241.9789 Fax: 608.241.5807 Although supreme court justices have always been Email: [email protected] Website: www.wistax.org chosen by popular vote in Wisconsin, judicial elec- Officers and Board of Directors: T. L. Spero, Chair, Milwaukee; K. D. Nunley, Vice-Chair, Milwaukee; tions were not always nonpartisan. Political parties J. D. McGaffey, Secretary-Treasurer, Milwaukee. nominated the fi rst three justices in 1852, although J. L. Adams, Beloit; D. L. Hughes, Milwaukee; J. J. Kita, Milwaukee; the 1848 constitution prohibited judicial elections Carol Ward Knox, Fort Atkinson; R. A. Meeusen, Milwaukee; H. C. Newell, Mosinee; C. D. Fortner, Milwaukee; J. R. Riordan, Madison; from being held within 30 days of any state general C. A. Rooks, Milwaukee; D. R. Schuh, Stevens Point; M. D. Simmer, election. It wasn’t until 1913 that nonpartisan election Green Bay. was written into law, but the fi rst nonpartisan election Staff: Todd A. Berry, President; Dale Knapp, Research Director; Melissa occurred 35 years before in 1878. Minkoff, Executive Assistant; Stephanie Rubin, Research Analyst; Gina Staskal, Business Manager. Size and Tenure Reproduction: Wisconsin’s fi rst supreme court had only three Media is encouraged to quote contents, with credit to WISTAX. Electronic reproduction or forwarding is prohibited unless prior justices. A constitutional amendment adopted in 1877 permission is granted. Send requests to [email protected]. Page 2 The Wisconsin Taxpayer averaged 96 cases per year between 2008-09 and Figure 1: 2012-13. Figure 1 shows that, compared to the prior Opinions Issued by the Wisconsin Supreme Court 2010-11 Through 2013-14 session, the court resolved more attorney discipline cases (52 vs. 42), civil cases (39 vs. 31), and criminal cases (30 vs. 25). When the court resolves a case, a justice is usually charged with authoring a majority opinion, which sets forth the decision of the court and often explains the rationale behind it. These are assigned at random. Justices that disagree with court decisions may author dissenting opinions at will. Authorship of majority opinions (61 total) was distributed fairly evenly among the justices, with Justice Abrahamson writing the fewest (7) and Justice Roggensack (11) the most. However, the majority of dissenting opinions (52 total) were written by either $WWRUQH\'LVFLSOLQH &LYLO&DVHV &ULPLQDO&DVHV Justice Abrahamson (26) or Justice Bradley (11). Petitions for Review. Every term, the supreme court receives petitions to review previous rulings ISSUES of the court of appeals. The supreme court does not The rules and operating methods of state supreme have to grant these and, as a result, reviews only a courts are not uniform across the country. In some small share of such cases each term. Additionally, cases, the traditions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court many petitions fi led in a given term are not considered stray from national norms, leading some to wonder until the next term. whether or not judicial reform is necessary. During 2013-14, 792 petitions for review were Selection fi led: 381 civil cases and 411 criminal cases. Over Although supreme court justices are elected in the course of the term, however, the court disposed Wisconsin, they are chosen by a variety of methods of 860 petitions, but granted only 65. By the end of in other states. Which is “best” is a matter for debate. the term, 295 petitions were still pending. By State. Most states select justices in one of three Other Petitions and Requests. In addition to ways: gubernatorial appointment, popular election, or reviewing past rulings, the supreme court can also legislative election (see Table 2 on page 4). exercise authority in cases currently being heard or Gubernatorial appointment is the most popular yet to be heard in a lower court. These are known selection method, currently used in 26 states. In as petitions for bypass and requests for certifi cation, 22 of these states, the governor makes his or her respectively. selection from the recommendations of a nonpar- The court received 24 petitions for bypass, re- tisan commission which recruits, investigates, and questing it take jurisdiction of a proceeding in the evaluates applicants for judgeships. In 13 states, court of appeals. In 2013-14, the supreme court dis- the governor’s selection requires confi rmation by posed of 16 but granted none of these petitions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • STATE V. LOOMIS | 881 N.W.2D 749 (2016) | by ANN
    12/15/2017 STATE v. LOOMIS | 881 N.W.2d 749 (2016) | By ANN... | 20160713i48| Leagle.com LAWYER LOGIN Home / Browse Decisions / N.W.2d / 881 N.W.2d / 881 N.W.2d 749 (2016) STATE v. LOOMIS No. 2015AP157-CR. Email | Print | Comments (0) View Case Cited Cases Citing Case 881 N.W.2d 749 (2016) 2016 WI 68 STATE of Wisconsin, Plainti-Respondent, v. Eric L. LOOMIS, Defendant-Appellant. Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Argued April 5, 2016. Decided July 13, 2016. Attorney(s) appearing for the Case For the defendant-appellant, there were briefs by Michael D. Rosenberg and Community Justice, Inc., Madison, and oral argument by Michael D. Rosenberg . For the plainti-respondent, the cause was argued by Christine A. Remington , assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was Brad D. Schimel , attorney general. ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. ¶ 1 In 2007, the Conference of Chief Justices adopted a resolution entitled "In Support of Sentencing Practices that Promote Public Safety and Reduce Recidivism." 1 It emphasized that the judiciary "has a vital role to play in ensuring that criminal justice systems work eectively and eciently to protect the public by reducing recidivism and holding oenders accountable." 2 The conference committed to "support state eorts to adopt sentencing and corrections policies and programs based on the best research evidence of practices shown to be eective in reducing recidivism." 3 ¶ 2 Likewise, the American Bar Association has urged states to adopt risk assessment tools in an eort to reduce recidivism and increase public safety.
    [Show full text]
  • If You Have Issues Viewing Or Accessing This File Contact Us at NCJRS.Gov
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. - 1iIt" ..' i· ! 1",,1 ------------...-, ------------------'-""-- - SURVEY OF JUDICIAL SALARIES IN STATE COURT SYSTEM~ A Publication of the National Center for State Courts 1660 Lincoln Street-Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80203 April 1977 Volume 3 Number 4 Volume 3 will extend through calendar year 1977. ,; ------------------------------------------------------------------~-~------------------------- CONTENTS Page Fore\':(;rd .................................................... v Board of Directors ............................................ vi Rank Order of Judicial Salaries, Population, and Per Capita Income in the Fifty States ........................ Judicial Salaries In Appellate and Trial Courts ..................... 3 Key to Abbreviations. 5 Salaries -- Courts of Appellate and General Jurisdictions and State Court Administrators .................................. 6 Salarit's - Courts of Special or Limited Jurisdiction. .. 12 Apr'l'ndix I -- Future Salaries and Pending Legislation .............. 20 Copyright 1977 Apppndix II - Floating Salary Statutes ............................ 24 Nationdl ("pnler for Stalt' Courh Council of State Court Representatives ............................ 26 This publication is supported by Grant Number 77-DF-99-0021, awarded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, United States Department of Justice. LEAA bears no responsibility for the accuracy of the information contained herein. ii iii National Center for State Courts
    [Show full text]
  • The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures
    The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures The Vermont Public Interest Action Project Office of Career Services Vermont Law School Copyright © 2021 Vermont Law School Acknowledgement The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures represents the contributions of several individuals and we would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their ideas and energy. We would like to acknowledge and thank the state court administrators, clerks, and other personnel for continuing to provide the information necessary to compile this volume. Likewise, the assistance of career services offices in several jurisdictions is also very much appreciated. Lastly, thank you to Elijah Gleason in our office for gathering and updating the information in this year’s Guide. Quite simply, the 2021-2022 Guide exists because of their efforts, and we are very appreciative of their work on this project. We have made every effort to verify the information that is contained herein, but judges and courts can, and do, alter application deadlines and materials. As a result, if you have any questions about the information listed, please confirm it directly with the individual court involved. It is likely that additional changes will occur in the coming months, which we will monitor and update in the Guide accordingly. We believe The 2021-2022 Guide represents a necessary tool for both career services professionals and law students considering judicial clerkships. We hope that it will prove useful and encourage other efforts to share information of use to all of us in the law school career services community.
    [Show full text]
  • Annette Ziegler Disciplinary Proceedings
    No. 2007AP2066-J STATE OF WISCONSIN IN THE SUPREME COURT _____________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST: THE HONORABLE ANNETTE K. ZIEGLER. WISCONSIN JUDICIAL COMMISSION, Complainant, v. THE HONORABLE ANNETTE K. ZIEGLER, Respondent. _____________________________________________________________ JUDICIAL CONDUCT PANEL’S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATIONS RALPH ADAM FINE Presiding Judge, Judicial Conduct Panel CHARLES P. DYKMAN Judge, Judicial Conduct Panel TED E. WEDEMEYER, JR. Judge, Judicial Conduct Panel Introduction As required by WIS. STAT. § 757.89, this Judicial Conduct Panel respectfully submits its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations in this matter to the supreme court for its review and determination under WIS. 1 STAT. § 757.91. Background On September 6, 2007, the Judicial Commission filed with the supreme court a complaint against the Honorable Annette K. Ziegler, asserting that it had “found probable cause to believe that Judge Ziegler has violated a rule in SCR Chapter 60, Code of Judicial Conduct.” The Judicial Commission is an agency created by WIS. STAT. § 757.83. The Commission is charged with the responsibility of investigating allegations of judicial misconduct by members of the Wisconsin judiciary. See WIS. STAT. § 757.85(1)(a) (“The commission shall investigate any possible misconduct or permanent disability of a judge or circuit or supplemental court commissioner. Misconduct constitutes cause under article VII, section 11, of the constitution.”). Article VII, section 11, of the Wisconsin Constitution provides: 1 As material, WIS. STAT. § 757.89 provides that “the panel shall make findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations regarding appropriate discipline for misconduct or appropriate action for permanent disability and file the findings, conclusions and recommendations with the supreme court.” As material, WIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin Judicial Elections Updated 02/23/04
    Wisconsin Judicial Elections Updated 02/23/04 1. Two candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme court, Diane Sykes and Louis Butler, pledged to run positive campaigns. Based on her reading of the judicial code of ethics, Sykes has declared that she will not comment on pending cases or legal issues that might come before the court in the future. Sykes stated that recent races for the state high court have become similar to legislative races, with candidates taking positions on legal issues. She added, “I will not discuss cases or legal issues, period.” Doing so, she said, “risks compromising the integrity, the independence and the impartiality of the judiciary.” Butler agreed with Sykes, but said a candidate’s record, qualifications, even personal opinions are all fair game. Richard P. Jones, Sykes, Butler Vow Positive Campaigns for High Court, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, January 4, 2000. 2. Columnist argues that Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Louis Butler “is far more qualified to sit on the state’s high court bench than the appointed justice he is challenging, conservative judicial activist Diane Sykes.” The piece argues, however, that Butler should refrain from criticizing Sykes’ ex-husband, Milwaukee radio talk show host Charlie Sykes. Butler recently suggested that Diane Sykes should publicly repudiate her ex-husband’s on-air comments about the judicial race. The columnist states, “It’s silly to suggest that Diane Sykes is responsible for what her ex-husband says. And it is equally silly to suggest that Charlie Sykes is pushing Diane’s candidacy any more aggressively than he has those of past conservative candidates for the court.” John Nichols, Charlie Sykes Upfront About Right-Wing Bent, Wis.
    [Show full text]
  • Famous Cases of the Wisconsin Supreme Court
    In Re: Booth 3 Wis. 1 (1854) What has become known as the Booth case is actually a series of decisions from the Wisconsin Supreme Court beginning in 1854 and one from the U.S. Supreme Court, Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 514 (1859), leading to a final published decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Ableman v. Booth, 11 Wis. 501 (1859). These decisions reflect Wisconsin’s attempted nullification of the federal fugitive slave law, the expansion of the state’s rights movement and Wisconsin’s defiance of federal judicial authority. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Booth unanimously declared the Fugitive Slave Act (which required northern states to return runaway slaves to their masters) unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned that decision but the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to file the U.S. Court’s mandate upholding the fugitive slave law. That mandate has never been filed. When the U.S. Constitution was drafted, slavery existed in this country. Article IV, Section 2 provided as follows: No person held to service or labor in one state under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. Based on this provision, Congress in 1793 passed a law that permitted the owner of any runaway slave to arrest him, take him before a judge of either the federal or state courts and prove by oral testimony or by affidavit that the person arrested owed service to the claimant under the laws of the state from which he had escaped; if the judge found the evidence to be sufficient, the slave owner could bring the fugitive back to the state from which he had escaped.
    [Show full text]
  • 20180810134844495 17-1584 Brief in Opposition.Pdf
    No. 17-1584 In the Supreme Court of the United States DANIEL J. H. BARTELT, PETITIONER, v. WISCONSIN ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN BRIEF IN OPPOSITION BRAD D. SCHIMEL MISHA TSEYTLIN Attorney General Solicitor General Counsel of Record State of Wisconsin Department of Justice AMY C. MILLER 17 West Main Street Assistant Solicitor Madison, WI 53703 General [email protected] (608) 267-9323 Attorneys for the State of Wisconsin QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a suspect automatically places himself into “custody” under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), by confessing. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED ......................................... i INTRODUCTION .......................................................1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED .............................................................3 STATEMENT ..............................................................3 REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION.......... 11 I. The Vast Majority Of Courts To Have Addressed The Question Presented Agree With The Wisconsin Supreme Court That A Suspect Does Not Automatically Place Himself Into Custody By Confessing ............. 11 II. The Wisconsin Supreme Court Correctly Determined That Petitioner Did Not Place Himself Into Custody By Confessing ............. 17 III. This Case Is A Poor Vehicle For Addressing The Question Presented ................................. 24 CONCLUSION ..........................................................26 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 (1988) ............................................. 18 Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) ...................................... passim Connecticut v. Edwards, 11 A.3d 116 (Conn. 2011) ................................... 12 Connecticut v. Lapointe, 678 A.2d 942 (Conn. 1996) ........................... 11, 12 Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) ....................................... 18, 25 Dowthitt v. Texas, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Ct.
    [Show full text]
  • A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's Critics Lynn Adelman
    Marquette Law Review Volume 91 Article 2 Issue 2 Winter 2007 Exercising Judicial Power: A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's Critics Lynn Adelman Shelley Fite Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Lynn Adelman and Shelley Fite, Exercising Judicial Power: A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's Critics, 91 Marq. L. Rev. 425 (2007). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol91/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW Volume 91 Winter 2007 Number 2 EXERCISING JUDICIAL POWER: A RESPONSE TO THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT'S CRITICS THE HONORABLE LYNN ADELMAN* SHELLEY FITE** I. INTRODUCTION In recent years, legal conservatives in Wisconsin have strongly criticized the performance of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. A former member of the court, Diane Sykes, now a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, warned that the court had undergone a "dramatic shift," "depart[ed] from ... familiar and long- accepted" constraints on its power, and failed to exercise its power judiciously.' She called on Wisconsin lawyers to "sit up and take notice.",2 Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Michael B. Brennan echoed Judge Sykes's criticisms, stating that the court's actions raised concerns "about the proper exercise of judicial authority under the state's constitution and laws." 3 And Milwaukee lawyer Rick Esenberg published a paper under the aegis of the Federalist Society, quoting former congressman Dick Armey for the proposition that the court had * Lynn Adelman is a United States District Judge in the Eastern District of Wisconsin and a former Wisconsin legislator.
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin Supreme Court Table of Pending Cases
    July 15, 2021 WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT TABLE OF PENDING CASES Clerk of Supreme Court Telephone: (608) 266-1880 Facsimile: (608) 267-0640 Web Site: www.wicourts.gov Wisconsin Supreme Court Case Access: http://wscca.wicourts.gov The following table describes pending cases the Supreme Court has accepted on petition for review, bypass, certification and original jurisdiction. The cases included for the first time (that is, the most recently accepted cases) are marked with an * next to the case number. After the Supreme Court decides a case, the date of oral argument or date of submission on briefs is replaced with the date of the Supreme Court decision and abbreviated mandate. That mandate will generally be listed in the table for two months and then the case will be removed from the table. The information in the table, from left to right, is as follows: the case number; an abbreviated caption of the case (case name); a statement of the issue(s); the date the Supreme Court accepted the case; the method by which the case came to the Supreme Court: REVW = Petition for review, CERT = Certification, CERQ = Certified Question, BYPA = Petition to bypass, ORIG = Original Action, WRIT = Petition for supervisory writ, REMD = Remanded from the U.S. Supreme Court; the date of oral argument or submission on briefs; or the date of the Supreme Court decision and an abbreviated mandate; the Court of Appeals district from which the case came, if applicable; the county; the date of the Court of Appeals decision, if applicable; whether the Court of Appeals decision is published or unpublished, and, if it is published, the citations to the public domain citation and the official reports for the Court of Appeals decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    2021 WI 24 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2018AP2357-LV COMPLETE TITLE: In the matter of the commitment of: State of Wisconsin, Petitioner-Petitioner, v. Anthony James Jendusa, Respondent-Respondent. REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION FILED: March 10, 2021 SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: October 26, 2020 SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: Circuit COUNTY: Milwaukee JUDGE: Joseph R. Wall JUSTICES: DALLET, J., delivered the majority opinion of the Court, in which ANN WALSH BRADLEY, HAGEDORN, and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined. ZIEGLER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROGGENSACK, C.J., and REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., joined. NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: For the petitioner-petitioner, there were briefs filed by Lisa E.F. Kumfer, assistant attorney general; with whom on the briefs was Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general. There was an oral argument by Lisa E.F. Kumfer. For the respondent-respondent, there was a brief filed by Dustin C. Haskell assistant state public defender. There was an oral argument by Dustin C. Haskell. 2021 WI 24 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2018AP2357-LV (L.C. No. 2016CI5) STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the matter of the commitment of: State of Wisconsin, FILED Petitioner-Petitioner, MAR 10, 2021 v. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court Anthony James Jendusa, Respondent-Respondent. DALLET, J., delivered the majority opinion of the Court, in which ANN WALSH BRADLEY, HAGEDORN, and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined. ZIEGLER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROGGENSACK, C.J., and REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., joined.
    [Show full text]
  • 110 East Main Street, Suite 215 P.O. Box 1688 Madison, Wi 53701-1688
    OFFICE OF THE CLERK 110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215 P.O. BOX 1688 MADISON, WI 53701-1688 TELEPHONE (608) 266-1880 FACSIMILE (608) 267-0640 Web Site: www.wicourts.gov December 3, 2020 To: R. George Burnett Joshua L. Kaul Conway, Olejniczak & Jerry, SC Thomas C. Bellavia P.O. Box 23200 Colin T. Roth Green Bay, WI 54305-3200 Colin R. Stroud Wisconsin Department of Justice James R. Troupis P.O. Box 7857 Troupis Law Office, LLC Madison, WI 53707-7857 4126 Timber Lane Cross Plains, WI 53528 David R. Gault Assistant Corporation Counsel Margaret C. Daun Office of the Dane County Corporation Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel Counsel 901 N. 9th Street, Room 303 210 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Room 419 Milwaukee, WI 53233 Madison, WI 53703-3345 *Address list continued on page 9. You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following order: No. 2020AP1971-OA Trump v. Evers A petition for leave to commence an original action under Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.70, a supporting legal memorandum, and an appendix have been filed on behalf of petitioners, Donald J. Trump, et al. Responses to the petition have been filed by (1) Governor Tony Evers; (2) the Wisconsin Elections Commission and its Chair, Ann S. Jacobs; (3) Scott McDonell, Dane County Clerk, and Alan A. Arnsten and Joyce Waldrop, members of the Dane County Board of Canvassers; and (4) George L. Christensen, Milwaukee County Clerk, and Timothy H. Posnanski, Richard Baas, and Dawn Martin, members of the Milwaukee County Board of Canvassers. A non- party brief in support of the petition has been filed by the Liberty Justice Center.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, JOSEPH P. HEIM, DAVID PERKINS, JOHN V. LIEN, MARILYN WITTRY, and HILDE ADLER, Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 15-cv-211-jdp SCOTT NEITZEL, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Administration, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, ANN WALSH BRADLEY, in her official capacity as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, N. PATRICK CROOKS, in his official capacity as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN, in his official capacity as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, DAVID T. PROSSER, JR., in his official capacity as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, PATIENCE D. ROGGENSACK, in her official capacity as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, in her official capacity as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, PAM RADLOFF, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Management Services, Wisconsin State Courts, MARGARET BRADY, in her official capacity as human resources officer for the Wisconsin State Courts, DOUG LA FOLLETTE, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Wisconsin, and MATT ADAMCZYK, in his official capacity as State Treasurer of Wisconsin, Defendants. The parties agreed that this case could be presented on a stipulated factual record, which they filed on May 29, 2015. Dkt. 86. A few days later, plaintiff Justice Abrahamson submitted an affidavit with additional material, Dkt. 89, and defendant Justice Bradley proposed to have additional facts judicially noticed, Dkt. 90. The other defendant justices now move to strike Abrahamson’s affidavit.
    [Show full text]