Partisan politics permeates Tuesday’s high court primary
MADISON – Officially, Tuesday’s state Supreme Court primary is nonpartisan.
But that’s in name only.
Races for Wisconsin’s high court have long had a partisan edge and this time around the candidates’ ties to the parties are clearer than ever.
Voters on Tuesday will narrow the field from three to two for the April 3 general election.
The candidates are:
Tim Burns, an attorney in the Madison office of the national law firm Perkins Coie who specializes in suing insurance companies. In a TV ad and on the campaign trail he has called himself a Democrat and said he is committed to building a progressive majority on a court that is now controlled 5-2 by conservatives.
Rebecca Dallet, a Milwaukee County Circuit judge who, like Burns, spoke at the state Democratic Party convention last year and has run an ad saying President Donald Trump is attacking people’s civil rights. While branding herself as a liberal, she has also courted moderate voters and said Burns has gone too far in talking about what he thinks about issues that could come before the court.
Michael Screnock, a Sauk County Circuit judge who has gotten more than $140,000 in help from the state Republican Party. Before GOP Gov. Scott Walker
appointed him to the bench in 2015, Screnock as an attorney helped Walker defend Act 10, the 2011 law that sharply curbed collective bargaining for public workers. Screnock also worked on the legal team that helped Republican lawmakers develop legislative and congressional maps that have given them an edge in elections.
The contest will determine who replaces Justice Michael Gableman, a conservative who is not seeking a second 10-year term.
Low voter turnout is typical in Supreme Court primaries. In the past two decades, there have been five of them and on average 7.3% of eligible voters have come to the polls for them, according to the state Elections Commission.
Dallet has had the financial edge in the race.
Since the race began, she has raised more than $587,000, including $200,000 of her own money she put into her campaign early on. Burns has raised more than $337,000 and Screnock has raised more than $318,000, with close to half of that coming from the Republican Party.
Dallet has emphasized her experience, noting she has been on the bench for 10 years and spent 11 years as a prosecutor before that. Screnock has focused on his judicial philosophy, saying he is committed to interpreting the law as written.
Burns has highlighted his willingness to fight for the average person, saying he would take on big business and is committed to establishing a liberal majority on the court. He has touted himself as a Democrat and criticized Dallet for rulings that he says are insensitive to minorities.
Burns has handled one case in Wisconsin state court. He has said his work in other states and in federal courtrooms around the country gives him the background to know how to transform Wisconsin's high court.
On major cases that the Supreme Court has decided in recent years, Burns and Dallet have largely sided with liberals while Screnock has lined up with conservatives.
Act 10. Burns and Dallet have said they disagree with federal and state court decisions that upheld Act 10. Screnock was on the legal team that helped defend that law limiting collective bargaining for public workers.
Voter ID. Burns and Dallet have expressed skepticism toward state and federal court decisions that have largely upheld Wisconsin's 2011 voter ID law. Both have said they support efforts that encourage people to vote.
Screnock in the fall said he hadn't studied the voter ID rulings enough to know whether the courts had gotten them right.
John Doe. The state Supreme Court in 2015 ended a John Doe investigation prosecutors had been conducting of Walker’s campaign and conservative groups backing him. The court determined there was nothing illegal for prosecutors to investigate because Walker’s campaign and the groups were allowed to work together.
Burns and Dallet have said the court should have allowed the investigation to continue. Screnock has said he agreed with the heart of the court's finding.
Fallout from the probe continues, with GOP Attorney General Brad Schimel seeking contempt proceedings against officials for their handling of evidence that was supposed to remain secret. A Brown County judge is considering Schimel's request and the issue — as well as others connected to it — could return to the state Supreme Court at some point.
Redistricting. In 2011, Republicans who control the Legislature drew election maps that greatly favor their party.
A panel of federal judges ruled 2-1 in 2016 that the maps were unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing that ruling and is expected to issue a decision by this summer.
Burns and Dallet have said they had serious concerns about how the maps were drawn. Screnock played a small role with the legal team that helped GOP lawmakers draw the maps.
He has spoken supportively of one legal argument that contends courts should stay out of partisan redistricting cases when mapmakers follow traditional criteria such as drawing compact districts that have equal populations.
If the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with that theory, Wisconsin’s maps would likely stand.