Los Angeles Times

Wisconsin voters and abortion

-

AN UNABASHED abortion rights supporter won a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court last week in a stunning 11-point victory over a conservati­ve antiaborti­on judge. Milwaukee County Judge Janet Protasiewi­cz’s defeat of former state Supreme Court Justice Dan Kelly gives the court a liberal majority for the first time in years.

As in other state elections since Roe vs. Wade was overturned last June, voters have turned out when abortion was on the ballot and made it clear they support reproducti­ve rights. That was certainly the case in Wisconsin, where abortion is unavailabl­e except in cases in which the pregnant person’s life is in danger. The contentiou­s race, which drew national attention and funding, is considered the most expensive judicial contest in U.S. history.

But what also makes it unusual is how partisan this nonpartisa­n judicial race became. It’s not just that Protasiewi­cz was backed by the Democratic Party and abortion rights groups, or that Kelly, who provided legal advice in the past to Wisconsin Right to Life, was backed by the Republican Party (which he also worked for in 2020) and antiaborti­on groups. It was notable because Protasiewi­cz intentiona­lly made her support for abortion rights clear. “I think the electorate deserves to know what a person’s values are rather than hiding them,” she said during the race’s only election debate.

Everyone expects the Wisconsin Supreme Court to eventually rule on a lawsuit by the state challengin­g the legitimacy of an 1849 Wisconsin ban on abortion. One district attorney has threatened to enforce it, and abortion providers have stopped their services for the time being. The state attorney general argues that the ban is superseded by more recent laws allowing abortion.

During the debate, Protasiewi­cz stated that she could not say how she would vote if that case came before her and that she would base her decision “solely on the law and the Constituti­on.” But she took a swipe at her opponent, saying she knew “with 100% certainty” that if he were elected, he would uphold the ban. Kelly protested, saying that “you don’t know what I’m thinking about that abortion ban.”

Of course, given the candidates’ histories and the groups supporting them, it’s probably a safe bet that Protasiewi­cz will vote to overturn the abortion ban — and that voters knew that when they went to the polls.

That’s not the only high-stakes issue that could come before the state’s high court. Law Forward, a Madison-based law firm, is expected to file a lawsuit challengin­g the state’s voting maps, arguing that partisan gerrymande­ring violates the state Constituti­on. Wisconsin has a Democratic governor and a Republican Legislatur­e — which, as of this recent election, has a supermajor­ity in the state Senate.

Changing those maps could change the compositio­n of the Legislatur­e and lead to, among other things, state laws protecting abortion access — something the Republican-controlled state Legislatur­e has done nothing on “despite the fact that the majority of Wisconsini­tes are committed to reproducti­ve freedom,” said Michelle Velasquez of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin.

It may seem unsettling for a judicial candidate to be honest about their point of view on issues that are at play in future judicial cases. However, in the recent years, we have listened to U.S. Supreme Court nominees coyly deflect any questions about whether they would respect the nearly 50year-old Roe vs. Wade decision only, once confirmed, to overturn that ruling and take away an establishe­d constituti­onal right.

So it’s rather refreshing to hear a judicial candidate be honest about their take on the right to control one’s body.

Ideally, voters shouldn’t decide what rights people should have or — more worrisome — decide what rights people shouldn’t have. The establishm­ent of civil rights and the protection of human rights should be the work of the courts. But when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe and took away the constituti­onal right to abortion, it left it up to the states — and the voters of those states — to protect reproducti­ve rights.

For the time being, we have to rely on voters to do the right thing and protect the rights the Supreme Court wouldn’t. That’s what Wisconsini­tes did Tuesday, and whether we live in that state or not, we should all be grateful.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States