In recent years, three of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s four conservatives were charged with ethics violations by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission — Justice Annette Ziegler for presiding over cases involving a bank where her husband was a director, Justice Michael Gableman for running a misleading campaign ad, and Justice David Prosser for allegedly grabbing a fellow justice by the neck. In the wake of these charges, all four of the court’s conservatives voted in a party-line vote not to reappoint the chair of this commission:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s conservative majority has decided not to reappoint the leader of a commission working to discipline Justice David Prosser.

Wisconsin Judicial Commission Chairman John Dawson’s term ends Aug. 1. Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and Justice Patrick Crooks [Editor's Note: Abrahamson, Bradley and Crooks make up the dissenting bloc on the conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court] sent Dawson a letter Friday saying the court had decided it didn’t want him back.

The decision was made in a closed vote. The three justices didn’t reveal the tally, but it takes four votes to make a decision and all three of them said they supported Dawson. That means the four-justice conservative majority, which includes Prosser, did not.

Currently, the only pending ethics charge against a member of the state’s highest court is the charge against Prosser. Ziegler received a public reprimand for her ethical lapse and the charges against Gableman were eventually dropped after the remaining justices split 3-3 along party lines on whether Gableman committed misconduct.

The case against Prosser may get shut down before it even begins, however, thanks to a quirk in Wisconsin state law. Normally, when the judicial commission brings an ethics charge of this kind, a three judge panel is appointed to determine whether that charge has merits. As a technical matter, however, that panel must be approved by the state supreme court itself. Prosser is now trying to prevent such approval from even being given by asking his colleagues to recuse themselves from the case — something one of his fellow conservatives has already agreed to do. If two or more of his remaining colleagues follow along, that will mean that the court lacks a quorum to approve a panel, and the case against Prosser will be blocked by this technicality.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck during argument in her chambers last June. Even Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) called the allegations against Prosser a “serious matter of grave concern,” and the Wisconsin Judicial Commission sought an investigation into whether Prosser’s actions violated his ethical obligations as a judge.

Prosser, however, has a very different take on the situation, suggesting that his alleged assault on a fellow justice is nothing more than a breach of “etiquette”:

Prosser, the subject of an ethics complaint filed in March with the Supreme Court, said in his response to the complaint Monday that the commission “may not investigate or prosecute protected speech, advocacy and etiquette of Wisconsin Supreme Court justices when they are deliberating in confidential closed conferences.”

The three alleged ethics violations stem from a June 13 incident in which Prosser acknowledges putting his hands around the neck of Justice Ann Walsh Bradley “to protect himself” and a February 2010 incident in which he admits calling Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson “a total bitch.”

For the record, a violation of “etiquette” occurs when someone uses the dessert spoon to eat the soup course. Placing your hands around a colleague’s neck is quite a bit more serious.

Voter ID laws disproportionately disenfranchise low income, minority and student voters, all of which tend to vote for Democrats. So it is no surprise they’ve become the darling of Republican state lawmakers interested in making it easier to keep their jobs and elect other Republicans to office. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), however, will not benefit from the voter suppressing law he signed — at least during his own upcoming recall election — thanks to a pair of decisions handed down by two state appeals courts:

A pair of appeals court rulings this week make clear the state’s new voter ID law will remain suspended through the May and June recall elections.

One of the opinions, released Thursday, said there was “no realistic possibility” the case would be decided before the June 5 recall election against Gov. Scott Walker and some of his fellow Republicans.

Walker and Republicans in the Legislature last year approved a new law requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls, but Dane County Circuit Judge David Flanagan issued an order temporarily blocking the requirement in a case brought by the Milwaukee branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera.

A week later, Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess permanently blocked the photo ID law because he said it violates the state constitution. That case was brought by the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin.

These decisions are good news for democracy in Wisconsin. Scott Walker has every right to remain governor if he faces the entire Wisconsin electorate and wins fair and square, but trying to rig the game by disenfranchising your opponent’s likely voters is beneath contempt.

It is also possible that Walker’s voter suppression law could even remain suspended through the November election. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin appeals courts typically take nine months or more to decide cases. Moreover, it is likely that the lower courts’ decisions striking down voter ID will be upheld by the courts of appeal. The text of the Wisconsin Constitution provides unusually strong protections against voter disenfranchisement, and Walker’s voter suppression law conflicts with at least 132 years of state supreme court precedent.

There is, of course, some risk that the increasingly partisan Wisconsin Supreme Court will ignore the state constitution, but even that is unlikely to happen until after the November election takes place. Earlier this month, the state justices turned down a request to fast-track the challenges to voter ID.

Last Friday, the Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed an ethics complaint against conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser. Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck during an argument in her chambers and the commission urged the high court to have a panel of three appeals court judges consider whether his actions violated three ethics rules.

Under that proposal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court would review the panel’s findings and decide on Prosser’s fate. But yesterday, the embattled judge — who has explained the alleged assault as a “total reflex” reaction after Bradley “charged” him — suggested his own audacious proposal.

Prosser said all six of his supreme court colleagues should recuse themselves from the case, which would have the apparent effect of killing the proceedings.

“You have six justices who were present at the scene,” Prosser explained, “You have justices with actual bias who are eyewitnesses and, in effect, parties.” A former Republican Wisconsin house speaker, he also blasted the judicial commission for being “partisan.”

By Prosser’s logic, justices would be able to escape punishment by their colleagues for any indiscretion — as long as they committed it in the presence of the rest of the court.

Last year, conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck during an argument in her chambers. Although a state prosecutor eventually decided not to file criminal charges against Prosser, the state’s judicial conduct body filed a formal complaint against Prosser on Friday:

The commission asked the high court to send the case to a panel of three appeals court judges to consider whether Prosser violated three ethics rules. The panel’s findings would then be sent to the high court, the only body that could make a binding ruling against Prosser.

The confrontation between Prosser and Bradley occurred in front of all but one of the other justices, who will have to decide whether to weigh in on the case or step aside. Stepping aside would effectively end the case.

This marks the fourth time in only a few years that a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s conservative bloc faced a serious ethics complaint. Justice Annette Ziegler’s fellow justices reprimanded her in 2008 for ruling on cases as a lower court judge regarding a bank where her husband was a director. An ethics case against Justice Michael Gabelman for running a false ad against his predecessor was dropped only after the remaining justices split 3-3 along party lines — and Gabelman now faces a second complaint for refusing to recuse himself from cases argued by a firm that reportedly provided him with tens of thousands of dollars in free legal services.

Yesterday, Judge Richard Niess became the second Wisconsin state judge to strike down that state’s Voter ID law as inconsistent with the Wisconsin Constitution. Like a previous decision striking down the voter disenfranchising law, Niess held that the Voter ID restriction cannot be squared with the state constitution’s command that “[e]very United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district,” regardless of whether or not they have an ID.

Because the state constitution is unambiguous on this point, that really should be the end of the discussion. Unfortunately, however, Wisconsin also has a notoriously conservative majority on its state supreme court that may be more interested in helping Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) disenfranchise liberal voters than it is in following the clear command of their state’s constitution. According to Niess, however, upholding this illegal law could only be done if the Wisconsin justices are willing to overrule more than a century of precedent. His opinion relies heavily on an 1880 decision that leaves no doubt that voter disenfranchisement of this kind is not allowed:

The elector possessing the qualifications prescribed by the constitution is invested with the constitutional right to vote at any election in this state. These qualifications are explicit, exclusive, and unqualified by any exceptions, provisos or conditions, and the constitution, either directly or by implication, confers no authority upon the legislature to change, impair, add to or abridge them in any respect.

Unfortunately for the voters of Wisconsin, of course, conservatives have shown little affection for precedent in recent years. The case against the Affordable Care Act requires the Supreme Court to overrule nearly 200 years of established precedent.

Voter ID laws are popular among conservative lawmakers because they disproportionately disenfranchise poor, student and minority voters, all of which are typically more left-of-center than the average voter. They also violate the federal Voting Rights Act’s prohibition on state laws that discriminate against minority voters.

According to Wisconsin Judge David Flanagan, they violate the Wisconsin Constitution too. In an order issued yesterday, Flanagan temporarily suspended his state’s voter ID law and strongly hinted that he will eventually strike the law down permanently.

As Flanagan’s opinion explains, the Wisconsin Constitution provides particularly strong protections for the right to vote — “[e]very United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district,” regardless of whether or not they have an ID. Moreover, the state supreme court has interpreted this constitutional provision very robustly. “Voting is a constitutional right,” according to the Wisconsin supremes, “any statute that denies a qualified elector the right to vote is unconstitutional and void.”

Flanagan accordingly subjects the law to the highest level of constitutional scrutiny, and finds it deeply lacking. As he explains, the law disenfranchises voters, sometimes in absurd ways, and targets a problem that is only slightly more real than fairies and unicorns:

[F]orty uncontested affidavits offer a picture of carousel visits to government offices, delay, dysfunctional computer systems, misinformation and significant investment of time to avoid being turned away at the ballot box. This is burdensome, all the more for the elderly and the disabled. . . . Mr. Ricky Tyrone Lewis is 58 years old, a Marine Corps Veteran and a lifelong Milwaukee resident. He was able to offer proof of his honorable discharge but Milwaukee County has been unable to find the record of his birth so he cannot obtain a voter ID card. Ms. Ruthelle Frank, now 84, is a lifelong resident of Brokaw, Wisconsin and a member of her town board since 1996. She has voted in every election over the past 64 years but she does not have a voter ID card. She located her birth certificate but found that her name was misspelled. She was advised to obtain a certified copy of the incorrect birth certificate and try to use that to obtain a voter ID card. . . .

The plaintiffs do not dispute, and the court certainly accepts fully the value of maintaining the accuracy and security of the ballot process. At this point, however, the record is uncontested that recent investigations of vote irregularities, both in the City of Milwaukee and by the Attorney General have produced extremely little evidence of fraud and that which has been uncovered, improper use of absentee ballots and unqualified voters, would not have been prevented by the photo identification requirements of Act 23.

Unfortunately, however, Flanagan’s decision will ultimately appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, whose current members have a long history of handing down ideologically conservative 4-3 decisions.

In just three short years on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, conservative Justice Michael Gableman managed to embroil himself in two major ethics scandals. The first, which arose before he was even elected to the court, arose out of a false ad Gableman ran during his election campaign claiming that his opponent unleashed a child molester on society. This ad led to an official ethics complaint from the state Judicial Commission, although the ethics case was eventually dropped after Gableman’s six colleagues on the state’s highest court split 3-3 along party lines on whether Gableman committed misconduct.

In order to defend himself against this ethics complaint, Gableman received tens of thousands of dollars in free legal fees from a law firm that frequently litigates in front of his court. Yet Gableman has continued to sit on cases brought by that firm — even casting the deciding vote allowing Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) attack on collective bargaining to go into effect.

In response to these two incidents, a member of the state legislature has now introduced a resolution calling for Gableman to be removed from the bench:

A Democratic state lawmaker circulated a resolution Wednesday calling for the ouster of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman because he presided over cases involving a law firm that had represented him without charging legal fees.

State Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, an attorney who is also running for Congress for the district covering the city of Madison, asked her colleagues to sign on to the resolution by Jan. 18. The state constitution allows for the Legislature to remove a judge from office with a two-thirds majority vote in both the Senate and Assembly.

Although Roys’ resolution is very unlikely to receive the two-thirds majority it requires in the GOP-controlled state legislature, Wisconsin’s voters are not powerless if they agree with Roys that Gableman’s actions go too far. Because Gableman has served more than a year of his current term in elected office, Wisconsin election law allows him to be recalled.