Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2015

2016 →

← 2013

• Page navigation
• On the ballot
• Political composition
• Campaign cash
• Public appearances
• Issues
• In the news

One seat was open for election on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2015. Incumbent Justice Ann Walsh Bradley defeated Rock County Circuit Court Judge James Daley in the general election on April 7, 2015. Although the election was nonpartisan, Bradley is considered to be part of the liberal minority on the court. If Daley won, conservatives would have held a five-member majority on the seven-member court.

On the ballot: Bradley seat

Justice Bradley was elected to the court in 1995 and re-elected in 2005. She previously served as a circuit court judge for 10 years in Marathon County. Judge Daley has served on the Rock County Circuit Court since 1989, and was re-elected in 2014.

See also: Wisconsin judicial elections, 2015

 

General election, 2015
Candidate	Vote %	Votes
Ann Walsh Bradley Incumbent	58.1%	471,866
James Daley	41.9%	340,632
Total Votes		813,200

Political composition

Wisconsin's supreme court justices are elected in nonpartisan elections. However, there was a 4-3 conservative majority heading into the election based on support during elections and decisions in cases. Justice N. Patrick Crooks is considered a swing vote in some cases, bringing the ideological balance to 4-2 with one outstanding vote. Bradley is typically considered a liberal member of the court.

Current justices

A blue dot denotes a liberal-leaning justice and a red dot denotes a conservative-leaning justice.

• Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson
• Justice Ann Walsh Bradley
• Justice N. Patrick Crooks
• Justice Patience Roggensack
• Justice Annette Ziegler
• Justice Michael Gableman
• Justice David T. Prosser

Margin of victory analysis

A University of Minnesota analysis of supreme court races in Wisconsin found that incumbents were defeated in only six of 95 re-election campaigns between 1852 and 2011. The following table details the margins of victory for supreme court races dating back to 2005:

Court race competitiveness, 2005-2013
Year	Winning candidate	Ideological lean	Percent of vote	Losing candidate	Ideological lean	Percent of vote	Margin of victory	Majority
2013	Patience Roggensack (incumbent)	Conservative	57.5%	Ed Fallone	Liberal	42.5%	15%	4-3
2011	David T. Prosser (incumbent)	Conservative	50.2%	Joanne Kloppenburg	Liberal	49.7%	0.5%	4-3
2009	Shirley Abrahamson (incumbent)	Liberal	59.6%	Randy Koschnick	Conservative	40.2%	19.4%	4-3
2008	Michael Gableman	Conservative	51.1%	Louis Butler (incumbent)	Liberal	48.5%	2.6%	4-3
2007	Annette Ziegler	Conservative	58.6%	Linda M. Clifford	Liberal	41.1%	17.5%	4-3
2006	N. Patrick Crooks (incumbent)	Liberal	99.4%	Write-in	-	0.6%	98.8%	4-3
2005	Ann Walsh Bradley (incumbent)	Liberal	99.6%	Write-in	-	0.4%	99.2%	4-3

Campaign spending

The pre-election reporting period concluded on March 30. Bradley reported a fundraising total of $381,000 from February 3 through March 23, while Daley received $148,000 during the same period. Bradley also held the cash-on-hand advantage with $281,000 on hand a week before the election compared to $214,000 for Daley.

TV ad spending

The Brennan Center for Justice and Justice at Stake published an analysis of spending by both campaigns on TV ads through early March. This report concluded that Bradley's campaign spent $145,000 on two ads compared to no TV ad spending for Daley.

Public appearances

Wisconsin elections on April 7

Election coverage Chief justice amendment Supreme Court race Madison city elections School board races

The two candidates participated in three forums and one televised debate prior to the general election:

March 27 (Wisconsin Public Television)

Bradley and Daley met for the election's only televised debate on March 27. The buzz words from the debate appeared to be partisan and activist, with Bradley again claiming that Daley brought partisan politics into a nonpartisan race and Daley alleging that Bradley is an extreme activist judge.

Here are key quotes from the candidates' debate:

Bradley

“	This has never happened before in the state of Wisconsin to this degree that a political party would be inserted into a nonpartisan race. Political parties have agendas and we can't have courts with agendas because that undermines the public's trust in the people in our decisions.	”
—Justice Ann Walsh Bradley (2015)

Daley

“	I'm talking to people who are as I am concerned with the activist jurist that Justice Bradley is, bringing her own brand of liberal extreme political beliefs and special interest and placing it over the constitution, rule of law, impartiality, and even common sense.	”
—Judge James Daley (2015)

March 25 (Dane County Rotary)

At the event on March 25, 2015, Daley made several key assertions about Justice Bradley. First, he said she was soft on crime, favoring the rights of criminal defendants. Bradley rejected the assertion and said that she had wide support from law enforcement because her record showed her impartiality. Daley also claimed that Bradley was a source of dysfunction on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He said that Bradley was involved in every supreme court scandal in recent years. This was a change from an earlier statement made by Daley; in December 2014, he told a newspaper that he did not blame Bradley for the court's problems.

The two also debated the proper role of a supreme court justice. Daley favored the view that justices must protect public safety and keep crime in check. Bradley, however, favored independence and rule of law. Bradley's statement about judicial independence linked back to her message that Daley's campaign was intertwined with the Republican Party.

March 24 (Dane County Bar Association)

The event sponsored by the Dane County Bar Association found Daley and Bradley at odds once again over partisan influences in the election. Bradley said,

“	I have a vision for our court system where political parties are not having undue input on nonpartisan races. I need and want the votes of Republicans, Democrats, independents and everyone in between. But I strongly believe political parties should stay out of judicial races.	”
—Justice Ann Walsh Bradley

Daley responded by indicating that taking campaign contributions from the Republican Party did not mean he held all the same views as that party.

“	This campaign is not about a certain in-kind donation to my campaign. The claim has been that by accepting that donation I, of course, am saying that I am supporting everything the Republican Party of Wisconsin does. Not true.	”
—Judge James Daley

Bradley, meanwhile, said that this race was crucial to the future of the court. She said the result of the election would have a lasting impact on the court for decades to come.

March 19 (Milwaukee Bar Association)

Urban Milwaukee said that Daley and Bradley blasted each other at the forum held on March 19, 2015. Daley called Bradley a judicial activist and said he would not legislate from the bench. Bradley criticized Daley's use of the term judicial activist, saying that it was a "cheap and easy" argument. The approved Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Amendment, of which Bradley was not in favor, was also mentioned. She called it payback from conservatives for the more liberal-leaning justices, including current Wisconsin Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. Other topics included: the "dysfunctional" state of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and campaign contributions from political parties in a nonpartisan judicial election.

On the issues

James Daley

Judge James Daley

One of Daley's main campaign platforms centered on contrasting his judicial philosophy with that of Justice Bradley, whom he called a judicial activist. While on the campaign trail in Jefferson County, Daley said,

“	Justices are not legislators. An activist judge does not give deference to the constitutional authorities of the other branches of government. I believe that is the hallmark of the separation of powers. I may not agree with the policy decisions of the Legislature but it is a high bar for us to say it is unconstitutional what they do.	”
—Judge James Daley

Daley accused Bradley of favoring trial attorneys because they donated to her campaigns. He also criticized Bradley for her decisions against "common-sense reforms" like Act 10, or the "Scott Walker Budget Repair Bill", and the voter ID law. Bradley said she was surprised by those comments because "it isn't the role of a justice to be supportive of anyone's agenda."

Ann Walsh Bradley

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley

Bradley's campaign emphasized her nonpartisan support and accused Daley's campaign of being partisan and funded by special interests. In her TV ad, she said, "Special interests and partisan politics have no place in our courtrooms."

“	Defeat it; that’s how you say 'no' to out-of-state special interest money and to those who want to have political parties inserted into judicial campaigns.	”
—Justice Ann Walsh Bradley

Daley responded by saying that he would accept help from anyone willing to contribute to his campaign, and that it is legal for individuals and specific groups to do so. He said that Bradley used the Democratic Party to circulate her nominating petitions.

Bradley also released a radio ad using the recording of conservative Milwaukee talk show host Mark Belling harshly criticizing Daley for being too soft on crime and calling him a "miserably rotten candidate". Belling used Daley's decision to sentence a man to one year in jail after beating his girlfriend's children with a hammer, spoon and spatula as his example.

Hear Bradley’s radio ad here.

Noteworthy events

Lawsuit by Abrahamson

Abrahamson, along with five registered voters, filed a federal lawsuit on April 8, 2015, unsuccessfully seeking to block implementation of an approved amendment to the state constitution that changed how the chief justice was selected. Federal judge James D. Peterson, on July 31, 2015, ruled in favor of the defendant's request for a dismissal. Peterson concluded that there was no compelling reason for federal courts to intervene on a state amendment interpreted by voters.

Timeline:

• Question 1, approved on April 7, changed chief justice selection from a seniority system to a process where justices choose a chief for a two-year term. The lawsuit, filed with the U.S. District Court for Western Wisconsin, argued that Abrahamson's rights to due process and equal protection were abridged by the amendment. Her filing sought to block application of the amendment until her term expired in 2019 or she left office prior to that year. Abrahamson filed the suit against the six members of the court, Secretary of State Doug La Follette (D), and State Treasurer Matt Adamczyk (R).

The filed complaint stated:

“	Should the new method of selecting a chief justice be put into immediate effect before the expiration of Chief Justice Abrahamson’s current term and a new chief justice selected, the term of the current, elected chief justice will be disrupted, her constitutionally protected interest in the office of chief justice will be impaired, the votes of her supporters will be diluted and the results of the 2009 election undone long after-the-fact, while the Wisconsin court system’s leadership will become unsettled. The retroactive application of the new amendment raises profound issues of Due Process and Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.	”
—Shirley Abrahamson et al. v. Department of Administration

The five registered state voter plaintiffs all listed the following as their complaint:

“	The challenged amendment if construed as applicable to Chief Justice Abrahamson and given retroactive effect dilutes the value of his vote and upsets his settled expectations by limiting the term of the candidate he successfully supported in the 2009 election.	”
—Shirley Abrahamson et al. v. Department of Administration

• Abrahamson, who served as chief justice from 1996 until fellow justices voted for her replacement on April 29, also sought a restraining order against her fellow justices, which would have prevented a vote to remove her as chief. Judge James Peterson rejected the request for a temporary restraining order on April 9, opting to wait until a hearing on April 21 to evaluate Abrahamson's filing in light of testimony from defendants. Abrahamson and other plaintiffs did not contact the defendants about the restraining order application prior to the filing, which is a requirement of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 65.

Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley decided to defend herself in the lawsuit, breaking with her five colleagues. The other five justices were defended by former Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John, who was paid $300 an hour by the state, although his contract was capped at $100,000.

• On April 21, Judge Peterson declined to block the amendment from going into effect while the lawsuit was pending. He claimed there would be no "irreparable harm" if Abrahamson was temporarily removed from her position. However, he warned the other justices not to replace her too quickly, saying, "The state would be well-served to have as few changes in chief justice as possible." On May 15, the judge refused to fulfill a request from Abrahamson to stop the court from electing a new chief justice. Peterson contended that recently elected Chief Justice Patience Roggensack had not proposed any radical changes to the court's structure; thus, there would be no harm in allowing Roggensack to be chief justice while the case moved forward.

• On July 31, 2015, Judge Peterson ruled in favor of the defendant's request for a dismissal. Peterson concluded that there was no compelling reason for federal courts to intervene on a state amendment interpreted by voters. In his ruling, Peterson stated:

“	Constitutional provisions are drawn with broad strokes ... There is no requirement that a state, in restructuring its government or the powers and duties of its officials by means of a constitutional amendment, do so with super-clarity to protect the interests of the officials or voters whose interests might be impaired. Unless its actions are plainly unconstitutional, Wisconsin has the authority and autonomy to restructure its government without interference from the federal government.	”
—Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, (2015),

Responses

Brandon Scholz, an organizer of the pro-amendment group Vote Yes for Democracy, made the following statement in response to the lawsuit:

“

I find it surprising that someone who has served as long as Justice Abrahamson has, for what would appear to be self-serving reasons, files the lawsuit in federal court against the will of the people.

”

Both the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Beloit Daily News called on Abrahamson to drop the lawsuit. The Capital Times editorial board, on the other hand, backed Abrahamson's lawsuit.

On April 14, 2015, members of Citizens for Responsible Government, a political action committee, asked the court to allow it to intervene in the case. The group argued against the validity of Abrahamson's lawsuit and sought to have the case thrown out. David Rivkin, an attorney for those asking to intervene, contended, "The office of chief justice of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin is not Justice Abrahamson's personal property. It belongs to the people of Wisconsin, and their will is clear."

Candidates campaign until the end

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and Judge James Daley both campaigned on April 6, 2015, the day before the election. Bradley stopped in Milwaukee, a more liberal-friendly area, and met with voters at a coffee shop. She made other smaller stops in the city, as well.

Daley stopped by Miller Park, where the Milwaukee Brewers baseball team had its home opener in the afternoon. He was outside in the tailgating area speaking with voters. He also focused his attention on Fox Valley, which is known for its conservative leanings. Daley attended a special Chamber of Commerce lunch in Fox Valley, then toured a factory in Columbus.

These were the last stops on the campaign trail for these candidates. Interestingly, Daley chose not to run television ads, relying on other methods of putting his name forth. Bradley, on the other hand, spent approximately $500,000 on TV ads. Outside groups ran ads in Bradley's favor, but none did so for Daley.

Articles:

• Green Bay Press Gazette, "State Supreme Court candidates make final push," April 6, 2015

Legal issues for Daley's daughter

An outstanding warrant stemming from a "driving while intoxicated" charge brought Daley's eldest daughter Maureen into the spotlight. Court documents showed that she had been considered a fugitive since leaving the state in 2008. Daley accused incumbent Ann Walsh Bradley of releasing the information on his daughter as part of her campaign strategy. He said this situation was a private matter and should not influence the election on April 7, 2015. Bradley's campaign declined to comment on the situation.

Articles:

• Tampa Tribune, "Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate's daughter wanted by state," April 2, 2015
• Associated Press, "Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate's daughter wanted by state," April 2, 2015

Dane County Republicans ask Justice Bradley to stop using photo of sheriff

Justice Bradley's campaign posted a photo to its Facebook page featuring the justice shaking hands with Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney. The two were standing in front of a county sheriff's car. The GOP of Dane County asked Justice Bradley to remove the photo from her campaign Facebook page and television ad.

The GOP group said that the use of the image was an ethics violation by Justice Bradley because she had not avoided impropriety, or the appearance of impropriety. Dane County property cannot be connected with, or seen to be connected with, an endorsement of a candidate. Sheriff Mahoney was also in the hot seat. The same ethics violation filed with the Dane County Ethics Board by Robert Hall, a resident of Dane County, also named the sheriff and claimed he used his public office inappropriately. Hall is a former member of the Massachusetts State Legislature.

The Dane County GOP released a statement on the issue requesting that Justice Bradley apologize to citizens for her impropriety, to remove the photo from the Facebook page and to stop running a television ad that uses the photo.

Articles:

• Wisconsin Watchdog, "Dane County GOP asks Justice Bradley to remove campaign ad, photo with sheriff," April 2, 2015
• '"Dane County GOP, "RPDC Asks Justice Bradley to Respect the Law," April 2, 2015

Bradley and Daley appear on local news broadcast

Both candidates were interviewed by an NBC affiliate in Madison on April 2, 2015. In the interview, Judge James Daley was asked again about the light sentencing he gave to a confessed child abuser. He stated that he was following a Wisconsin Supreme Court case dealing with sentencing after a plea deal that was authored by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. Bradley was critical of Daley's sentencing in that case.

In his interview, Daley was critical of Bradley's acceptance of union money and said that those funds were political in nature. Bradley, however, said there is a difference between political parties and unions. She noted that political parties have agendas pushed through campaigns, while unions do not.

Bradley discussed the criticism the court has received over the last few years. She stated during her interview that the seven current justices know they have "had some challenges," perhaps referring to the discord that arose between the justices and, in particular Bradley and Justice Prosser. She went on to say that they all "have to do better."

Articles:

• NBC15, "NBC15 sits down with both Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates," April 2, 2015

Pro-Question 1 group contributed $600,000 to secure a 'yes' vote

A group known as Vote Yes for Democracy contributed $600,000 to pay for advertising urging Wisconsin voters to vote yes on the constitutional amendment. The amendment, known as Question 1, dealt with how the chief justice of the supreme court is selected. The amendment was approved on April 7, meaning that the chief justice will be selected to a two-year term by fellow justices rather than falling to the justice with the longest service on the court.

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce contributed the $600,000 to Vote Yes for Democracy. The money was used to pay for several radio ads and covered the cost of a pro-Question 1 television ad to air in the final days leading to the election on April 7.

An anti-amendment group known as Make Your Vote Count released its own advertising spots, one of which features former Chief Justice Janine P. Geske. Make Your Vote County had only raised $80,000.

The then-chief justice, Shirley Abrahamson, had held the position since 1996.

Articles:

• Wisconsin State Journal, "Business group bankrolling 'yes' vote in Supreme Court referendum," March 31, 2015

2015 supreme court race 'quiet'

In comparison to other years and despite the rhetoric, some observers called the 2015 Wisconsin Supreme Court race between Judge James Daley and incumbent Justice Ann W. Bradley quiet. Milwaukee Magazine writer Larry Sandler said the two were "pulling their punches." The 2007 campaign saw $5.8 million spent by the candidates, while nearly $6 million was spent by candidates in the 2011 race. Daley and Bradley did not spend anywhere near as much.

Articles:

• Milwaukee Magazine, "Pulling Their Punches," April 1, 2015
• WXOW 19, "Groups: TV ads top $600K in Wisconsin Supreme Court race," April 1, 2015

Campaigns spend over $600,000 on campaign ads

The campaigns of incumbent Ann Walsh Bradley and challenger James Daley spent over $600,000 for advertising spots during the campaign. The vast majority of that amount was spent by Bradley. She ran two television ads and one radio spot that cost her $510,000. Daley spent a meager (in comparison) $108,000 on several radio spots but did not purchase any television ads.

Joining the candidates in purchasing advertising time was the Greater Wisconsin Committee, an organization that purchased television air time to run an ad against Daley. The spot criticizes the Rock County judge for his sentencing of a child abuser.

Articles:

• WXOW 19, "Groups: TV ads top $600K in Wisconsin Supreme Court race," April 1, 2015

Speculation over approval of Question 1

An amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution proposed for the April 7 ballot sought to change how the court's chief justice is selected. The amendment, approved on April 7, allows justices to select their chief rather than rely on seniority. Shirley Abrahamson held the position at the time the amendment was proposed because she had served on the court the longest of any sitting justice.

Political observers in the Badger State had to wait on certification of the vote as well as the justices' decision on the chief's seat with approval of Question 1. Wisconsin Statute 7.70 requires the official canvass of votes for a spring election to be completed by the 15th day of May following the election. The canvassing board met following the election on April 29. In 2014, state election officials completed canvassing of votes on an approved amendment for transportation funds by April 24. In the 2013 spring election, state canvassers certified results on April 23, while the 2011 election was not certified until May 23 due to a recount.

The wording of the measure did not address limits on when the justices could elect a new chief justice, leaving unanswered for a while the question of a timeline for Question 1's use. The last day of the 2014-2015 court calendar was June 30, 2015.

The following map details how supreme court justices are elected throughout the United States. Wisconsin is one of 15 states that holds nonpartisan elections for this office:

The map below highlights selection methods in state supreme courts across the country.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Wisconsin supreme court election 2015. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2015 - Google News

See also

• Wisconsin judicial elections, 2015
• Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Amendment, Question 1 (April 2015)

External links

• Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, "Spring 2015 Election"
• Wisconsin Court System, "Supreme Court"

Footnotes

Wisconsin courts

---

Federal courts:

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: Eastern District of Wisconsin, Western District of Wisconsin • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: Eastern District of Wisconsin, Western District of Wisconsin

State courts:

Wisconsin Supreme Court • Wisconsin Court of Appeals • Wisconsin Circuit Courts • Wisconsin Municipal Courts

State resources:

Courts in Wisconsin • Wisconsin judicial elections • Judicial selection in Wisconsin