Vol. 83, Number 2 | February 2015

What’s On The Ballot? The Supreme A Guide to the Candidates and a Pending Constitutional Amendment

Voters will make two important decisions this spring affecting the . First, they will elect a supreme court justice to serve for the next ten years; Justice is being challenged by James P. Daley. Second, they will vote on a constitutional amendment that would change how the court’s 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 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 (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 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 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, (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. By the legislature, a nonpartisan commission, or the the end of the term, another 16 petitions for bypass governor’s council. were pending. In 22 states, supreme court justices are chosen The supreme court received three requests for by popular vote. Including Wisconsin, 15 states hold certifi cation in 2013-14 that asked it to exercise its nonpartisan elections, although Ohio and Michigan appellate jurisdiction before the court of appeals have partisan primaries. Another seven hold partisan heard the matter. Including four from the previous elections. term, the court disposed of seven and granted fi ve of Finally, in South Carolina and Virginia, the legis- these requests. lature elects justices to the supreme court. In South

Vol. 83, Number 2 | February 2015 Page 3 Carolina, candidates are nominated by a commission; ment and gave the legislature the power to enforce in Virginia, by the governor. a mandatory retirement age of no less than 70 years. Independence vs. Accountability. Although Since then, the legislature has not enforced such a popular elections are usually the most democratic ap- requirement. However, some state legislators have proach, many say merit-based selection methods, such recently voiced support for a mandatory judicial re- as gubernatorial appointment from independent rec- tirement age of 75. ommendations, better preserve judicial independence State supreme courts (31 of 50) generally have age by eliminating the need for candidates to raise funds, limits (see Table 2). Most commonly, states require advertise, and make campaign promises. By allowing justices to retire when they reach 70 years of age (22 judges to rule without fear of losing campaign dona- states). The age limit is higher in nine states; 72 in tions or votes, supporters of merit selection argue it Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, and South Carolina; minimizes politicization of court rulings. 74 in Texas; and 75 in Indiana, Oregon, Utah, and However, others are more concerned with judicial Washington. Like Wisconsin, the remaining 19 states accountability than independence. By leaving the have no age limit. decision to voters, some contend, a supreme court is Concern over the age of justices is compounded accountable to the citizens of the state. by term limits, or the lack thereof. In 18 of the 19 Retirement states without mandatory retirement ages, justices Mandatory retirement ages for justices also vary. serve for set terms, at the end of which they must be Currently, justices in Wisconsin are not required to reappointed or reelected to remain on the bench. Only retire at any particular age, though the state has had in Rhode Island does the supreme court have neither an age limitation in the past. a retirement age nor a term limit. Upon appointment, justices there serve for life, as is the case with the U.S. A constitutional amendment adopted in 1955 Supreme Court.  required justices to retire at the end of the month in which they reached 70 years of age. In 1968, the constitution was again amended, allowing justices to DATA SOURCES: American Judicature Society; The Council of State Governments; serve until July 31 following their 70th birthdays. A Willamette Law Review 1445 (2003); Wisconsin Appellate Law; 1977 constitutional amendment ended this require- Wisconsin Legal History Committee

Table 2: Supreme Courts By State Age Limit, Term Length, Selection Method*, By State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nonpartisan election, PE=partisan election, A=appointment, LE=legislative election

Page 4 The Wisconsin Taxpayer Supreme Court Candidates In an effort to inform voters, the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance asked supreme court candidates to share with vot- ers their professional backgrounds and to author a “letter of application” explaining why voters ought to elect them. Below are their verbatim responses.

JUSTICE ANN JUDGE JAMES WALSH BRADLEY P. DALEY Candidate Background Candidate Background Professional Experience. For the past 20 years, I have Professional Experience. Wisconsin Circuit Court had the honor to stand up for the people of Wisconsin on the Judge, Rock County Branch 1; Chief Judge Wisconsin 5th Supreme Court. I was fi rst elected to the Court in 1995 and Judicial District; Rock County District Attorney (1985- was re-elected in 2005. Prior my election to the Supreme 1989); Marine Corps (1966-1969); Brigadier Court, I served as a Circuit Court Judge for ten years in General; Army National Guard (honorably discharged Marathon County, as an attorney in private practice and completing 36 years of service); Private Practice Attorney as a high school teacher. (1981-1985); J.D. ; B.A. Carroll Col- Awards and Distinctions. Recipient of the American lege (Waukesha, Wisconsin). Judicature Society’s Harley Award, a national honor that Awards and Distinctions. Chief Judge, Wisconsin’s is reserved for judges whose outstanding efforts and long- 5th Judicial District; Convicted over 30,000 criminals over term contributions have resulted in substantial improve- the course of 26 years on bench; Established OWI Court ments to the justice system; Named one of Wisconsin’s (2013); Established Wisconsin’s fi rst Veteran’s Regional outstanding “Women in the Law” by the Wisconsin Law Diversion Court in September (2009); 2009 Recipient of Journal; Founded the chaired Hmong Task Force which the “Eisenberg Award” from the Wisconsin State Public received the National Foundation for Improvement of Defender Board; Established Drug Court (2006); Estab- Justice Award; recipient of Athena Award and Business lished “Pro-Arrest Policy” for suspected domestic abusers and Professional Woman of the Year Award. as Rock County District Attorney (1987); 2011 Induction Professional Memberships. Vice-Chair of the Board of into the Wisconsin Army National Guard Hall of Honor; Directors of the International Judicial Academy; Wisconsin Awarded the Purple Heart; Awarded the Bronze Star Medal co-chair of iCivics, retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s with Combat V; Meritorious Mast. nonpartisan effort to improve understanding of the role Professional Memberships. Member of the Rock of the Courts; North American delegate to the Board of County Bar Association; Member of the Voluntary Asso- Directors of the International Women Judges Association; ciation of Trial Judges; Member of the American Legion; elected member of the American Law Institute; member, Member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars; Member of the State Bar Bench-Bar Committee; Board of Visitors of the Military Order of the Purple Heart; Member of the Disabled UW Law School; Judicial Conference Executive Commit- American Veterans; Member of the Marine Corps League; tee; Federal-State Judicial Council. Extensive past service Member of the Marine Corps Association; Member of on boards and committees. the Military Offi cers Association of America; Member of the Retired Reserve Offi cers Association; Member of the Statement National Guard Association of the United States. Like you, I care deeply about this state and the more than 5.7 million people that call Wisconsin home. My Statement Wisconsin roots are strong and my extended family large. Dear Citizen, Many of the values I hold dear today are the same I am Rock County Circuit Court Judge Jim Daley and I values I learned growing up in my hometown of Richland am running to support the rule of law and a Justice’s Con- Center—values of family, community, hard work and the stitutional integrity to the Wisconsin .

Vol. 83, Number 2 | February 2015 Page 5 Bradley cont. Daley cont. importance of service to others. Both of my parents were My judicial philosophy is quite simple. As a Circuit born and raised in Richland County, as were my grand- Court Judge, I have a record of applying the rule of law parents. My great-grandparents homesteaded in Southwest to the facts presented to me in all cases. A justice on the Wisconsin. Our family home in Richland Center has been Wisconsin Supreme Court should be governed by the rule in the family for over 90 years. of law, and should not impose a personal or political agenda I have carried those values with me when I taught high on which cases come before the Court and how they are school in La Crosse, when I practiced law in Wausau and decided. A Supreme Court Justice should never use their when I served for ten years as a Marathon County circuit position to legislate from the bench. Independence as a court judge. My husband, Mark, and I live in Wausau, judge is vital so long as the judge is properly constrained raised our four children here, and together passed those by their defi ned role as judges, not policy makers. My same values on to them. compass in all matters is the Constitution. For the past 20 years, I have had the honor of serving The Supreme Court is tasked with fi rst applying, then on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. There, I’ve worked to fairly interpreting the laws of our state and nation in a protect the people of Wisconsin, uphold their individual consistent and reliable manner without bias, prejudice, or rights, make government open and accessible, and hold partisan considerations. It is our job as judges to ensure every branch of government accountable under the con- that the people of Wisconsin, and its leaders, understand stitution. precisely what the law requires of them, as well as what the law restricts them from doing. I am committed to maintaining a supreme court that is fair, neutral, impartial and non-partisan – a court that is When citizens seek offi ce, they often recite a list of fi ercely independent, not beholden to any political party, promises of all the great things they are going to do in association or special interest group. their new position. Activism is not my role and should not be the role of anyone on the bench. My approach is That is critically important, not only in terms of how different, and, I want to assure you of a few things I will our courts function but also in terms of ensuring Wisconsin NOT do if elected. residents have confi dence in our courts and confi dence that they will receive a fair shake from those courts. The I will not use my seat on the court to overturn the will importance of a nonpartisan and impartial judiciary is a of the people in favor of my own personal beliefs. Instead, message I will continue to focus on during this campaign. I will hold fast to the rule of law and demand the same of I am honored to have earned the support of a growing list our elected leaders. of bi-partisan supporters, including over 100 law enforce- I will not use this position as a way to punish businesses ment professionals from all corners of the state. with activist regulations, or Wisconsinites by socially en- In addition, I am dedicated to promoting an under- gineering some type of liberal utopia. standing of the importance of the role of courts and the And I will not make more diffi cult the jobs of our dedi- rule of law, both at home and abroad. Traveling to the four cated law enforcement offi cers who go to work every day corners of this state and places in between, I have cham- and risk their lives to protect our families. With a growing pioned the teaching of civics education, serving as state number of sheriffs and district attorneys from around Wis- co-chair of former U. S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day consin endorsing my candidacy, I am law enforcement’s O’Connor’s civic education program. Traveling several choice to sit on the state Supreme Court. continents, I have taught judges and lawyers in emerging My campaign is about doing the right thing, because and struggling nations about the importance of the rule doing the right thing transcends partisan politics. Wis- of law as they endeavor to write new constitutions and to consin is ready for a justice who is truly independent and develop new procedures in their system of justice. adheres to the Constitution and legal integrity on the bench That’s who I am, and what I believe in. And, that’s I’m asking for your vote on April 7, 2015. Thank you. why I am asking for your support and your vote as I run Sincerely, for re-election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Judge James Daley

Page 6 The Wisconsin Taxpayer Spring Election: Constitutional Amendment In addition to supreme court candidates, a consti- They point out that peer vote is the nation’s most tutional amendment is on the ballot this spring. As common method of choosing a chief justice, with required by law, the amendment has been approved in 22 (44%) of the 50 states using it (see Figure 1). In identical form by both the senate and the legislature in another 13 (26%) states, the governor is charged with two consecutive terms. If ratifi ed by voters on April nominating or appointing the chief. A third, less 7, the amendment will change the way that the chief popular method used in seven (14%) states leaves it justice of the supreme court is chosen. to voters to choose. SENIORITY NO LONGER RULES? Wisconsin is one of six (12%) states, along with Currently, the senior-most justice serves as chief Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, and Penn- justice. The proposed amendment would require that sylvania, where the chief justice is determined by the chief justice be chosen by a majority of justices seniority. currently serving on the court. It also introduces a Cons. Those on the other side of the debate con- term length of two years for the chief justice. Cur- tend that the amendment is politically motivated. If rently, the chief serves for the duration of his or her adopted, the amendment would likely remove Shirley service on the court. Abrahamson, who has served as chief since 1996, from the position. The Question The proposed amendment will appear on the bal- They also note that the proposed two-year term lot in the form of a question: limit is relatively short compared to other states. Chief justices in only seven (14%) states have terms lasting Question 1: “Election of chief justice. Shall sec- two years or less. In a majority of states (28), chief tion 4 (2) of article VII of the constitution be amended justices have terms of six years or longer, including to direct that a chief justice of the supreme court shall 11 where they serve for the duration of their service be elected for a two-year term by a majority of the on the court.  justices then serving on the court?”

Chief Justice Figure 1: Chief Justice Selection Method Responsibilities. According to the state constitu- Method by State, Number of States tion, the chief justice is “the administrative head of the judicial system and shall exercise this administrative -XGLFLDO authority pursuant to procedures adopted by the su- 1RPLQDWLQJ /HJLVODWLYH preme court.” As such, the chief justice has no more &RPPLVVLRQ (OHFWLRQ ruling power than other justices on the court, but can   (OHFWLRQ schedule oral arguments and conferences, and, with unanimous approval from the court, make changes to  the judicial calendar. 6HQLRULW\   History. Originally, Wisconsin’s chief justice was 3HHU 9RWH chosen by voters. That system remained in place until  an 1889 constitutional amendment provided that the *RYHUQRU V longest-serving justice would serve as chief. Since $SSRLQWPHQW then, the senior justice has become chief, although a 1977 constitutional amendment allowed the senior justice to decline irrevocably the position. Pro and Cons Pros. Many in support of the amendment insist DATA SOURCES: that peer vote would increase collegiality among American Judicature Society; Wisconsin Government Accountability justices, by allowing them to choose their own head. Board; Wisconsin Legal History Committee

Vol. 83, Number 2 | February 2015 Page 7 PERIODICALS wis tax USPS 688-800 Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance 401 North Lawn Avenue • Madison, WI 53704-5033 608.241.9789 • www.wistax.org

WISTAX NOTES Through history, 132 women have held seats in the state  Cigarette Smuggling. A 2013 study found that 31.2% legislature. The number peaked at 37 in 1989 and 2003. of cigarettes consumed in Wisconsin were smuggled in (Legislative Reference Bureau) from out of state. Wisconsin ranked 7th of the 50 states  Manufacturing in Wisconsin. Recently released Cen- that year, up 11 spots from 18th in 2006, the last time the sus data show that Wisconsin had the 9th most manufactur- study was conducted. Wisconsin’s cigarette tax rate was ing establishments of the 50 states in 2012 (see below). Of increased in 2008 from $0.77 per pack to $1.77, and again the top ten, Wisconsin’s population is smallest. in 2009 to its current $2.52. Figure 1: Of surrounding states, Wisconsin has both the highest Top Ten Manufacturing States cigarette tax and inbound smuggling rate. However, after Total 2012 Establishments, Thousands hikes in state and county excise tax rates, Illinois’ inbound  smuggling rate jumped from 1.1% in 2006 to 20.9% in 2013. New York (58.0 percent), Arizona (49.3 percent), Washington (46.4 percent), New Mexico (46.1 percent),  and Rhode Island (32.0 percent) have the highest inbound smuggling rates. The highest outbound smuggling rates  are in New Hampshire (28.6 percent), Idaho (24.2 percent),  Virginia (22.6 percent), Delaware (22.6 percent), and Wyo-     ming (21.0 percent).     An Evolving Legislature. The Wisconsin state sen-   ate is the “oldest” since at least 1943. The average age of senators in the new session is 57, with a range from 34 to 87. Only three senators are under 40, while 15 are 60 or  over. The average age of state representatives is 48 years 1& :, 0, )/ ,/ 3$ 2+ 1< 7; &$ old, with a range of 24 to 76. The election of Senator Mary Lazich as Senate President in 2015 marks the fi rst time a woman has served as presiding In FOCUS . . . recently in our biweekly newsletter offi cer of either house. Currently, a total of 33 women are ■ serving in the Wisconsin legislature: 11 in the senate and State of the State? Rhetorical and Statistical (#2-15) 22 in the assembly. The 11 female senators is the most in ■ Update: State-local government spending in Wisconsin history, matching previous peaks in 1999 and 2001. The (#3-15) largest number of female representatives was 33 in 1989. ■ The 2015-17 state budget (I): Getting to now (#4-15)

Th e Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, founded in 1932, is the state’s oldest and most respected private government-research organization. Th rough its publications, civic lectures, and school talks, WISTAX aims to improve Wisconsin government through citizen education. Nonprofi t, nonpartisan, and independently funded, WISTAX is not affi liated with any group—national, state, or local—and receives no government support. In accordance with IRS regulations, WISTAX fi nancial statements are available on request.