The Club for Growth, a right-wing group that supports tax cuts for the rich, privatizing Social Security and writing Tea Party ideology into the Constitution, spent $300,000 to keep a key ally of anti-union Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) on the Wisconsin Supreme Court — and that was just in the primary:

Now, another member of the court’s 4-3 right-wing majority, Justice Patience “Pat” Roggensack, is up for re-election. Roggensack is being aided by the same outside groups that aided Walker in advancing some of his most controversial proposals. The far-right independent expenditure group Wisconsin Club for Growth spent an eye-popping $300,000 on television ads supporting Roggensack during the primary. Club for Growth was responsible for more than 75% of the nearly $400,000 in TV spending in the primary race, and more than 80% of the total ad spots, according to TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG estimates released by the Brennan Center for Justice and Justice at Stake.

In addition, Roggensack is being handed big checks by some of the same wealthy donors that gave to Governor Walker in his recall campaign, such as Beloit billionaire Diane Hendricks and David Uihlein, Jr., as well as a variety of PACs and local Republican Party chapters.

Her opponent, Marquette Law Professor Edward Fallone, has been endorsed by a host of progressive organizations, but lags well behind in fundraising. If Fallone took the majority the court could do a virtual 180 on some of the state’s most contentious issues

It’s not surprising that the Club and other well-moneyed conservatives are willing to spend big to keep Roggensack on the court. Roggensack was part of the 4-3 majority that upheld a law pushed by Walker to undermine public sector unions. She also cast the key vote to reject an ethics rule that would have prevented justices from hearing cases involving their major campaign donors. Instead, Roggensack backed a rule written by corporate lobbyists.

The last time control of this court was at stake, conservatives also spent big to keep Walker’s allies in charge. In the week before conservative Justice David Prosser’s reelection, a report found just three groups spent nearly $1.4 million to keep Prosser on the bench. A group with close ties to the billionaire Koch brothers spent nearly $400,000.

The conservative Wisconsin justice who allegedly grabbed fellow justice Ann Walsh Bradley by the neck during an argument in her chambers was perceived as a threat long before that June 2011 incident, according to a filing by Bradley recusing herself from the related judicial ethics proceeding.

Two months earlier, Bradley and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson had developed a security plan that included locking themselves in their offices on nights and weekends, and securing more frequent police patrols. Other incidents that led them to be concerned included a 2010 correspondence in which Prosser reportedly called Abrahamson a “total bitch” and said, “There will be a war against you and it will not be a ground war.” Bradley explains in her filing:

Contrary to Justice Prosser’s answer to the Judicial Commission complaint and to recent public comments, what happened in my office on June 13, 2011 is not an isolated event. Rather, it is one event in a history of abusive behavior in our workplace that has escalated from tantrums and rages, to threats, and now to physical contact. [...]

In late March 2011—two months before the incident in my office—it appeared to me and others that Justice Prosser’s behavior was becoming increasingly agitated. One newspaper editorial characterized his comments as “odd,” “troubling” and “unsettling.” A then, but now retired, Deputy Director of State Courts contacted me to warn of her concern that Justice Prosser may endanger my physical safety as well as that of the Chief Justice. [...]

To this day, the Chief Justice and I continue to lock ourselves inside our private offices when working alone because of concerns for our physical safety due to Justice Prosser’s behavior. That is not a satisfactory solution. Our court needs to address and solve its workplace safety issue. If nothing is done, I wonder what will happen next in this escalating pattern of abusive behavior.

It appears, however, that nothing will be done in the immediate future. Although ethics charges were filed against Prosser after the June 2011 incident in which Prosser admitted putting his hands around Bradley’s neck “to protect himself,” Prosser had already convinced three of his fellow conservatives on the court to recuse themselves from the case — eliminating the necessary quorum to appoint a three-judge panel and effectively immunizing him from any disciplinary action. And his fellow justices replaced an ethics official who supported the probe with one who had called the ethics allegations “unfairly directed.” In her memo, Bradley urged reform of the judicial discipline process in which “justices sitting in judgment of their closest colleagues.” “In any other place of employment,” she reasons “there likely would be serious consequences for such a response.”

 

 

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser is currently the target of a ethics probe into an incident where he allegedly grabbed a fellow justice by the neck during an argument in her chambers. Yet, despite the seriousness of these allegations, Prosser and his conservative allies on the court have bent over backwards to prevent this probe from moving forward. Prosser convinced his three fellow conservatives on the court to recuse themselves from the probe, a move that effectively prevents any meaningful action against Prosser. And they removed an ethics official last May who supported the probe into Prosser.

This official’s replacement has now been announced, and he appears hand chosen to ensure that Prosser does not have to worry about any inconvenient probes into his ethical fitness for the job:

State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser and three other justices have appointed a retired attorney to the Wisconsin Judicial Commission who has said the ethics case against Prosser is unfair.

The court voted 4-3 to appoint Frank J. Daily to the commission last month, at a time when the case against Prosser faces major hurdles.

In a May letter to the editor printed in the Journal Sentinel, Daily said the proceeding against Prosser was “unfairly directed” at him and suggested it should be ended. His letter also took issue with Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, who has often clashed with Prosser; Daily called the chief justice “vindictive” and said she was responsible for the decline of the court’s reputation.

Wisconsin’s conservative justices have a history of protecting their own against ethics complaints. A complaint against conservative Justice Michael Gabelman for running a misleading campaign ad was shut down after the court split on party lines in Gabelman’s favor.

Conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser currently faces ethics charges for allegedly grabbing fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley by the neck during an argument in Bradley’s chambers. In response to these allegations, Prosser tried to convince a majority of his colleagues to recuse themselves from his case — a move that would effectively kill the complaint against him because it would deprive the state supreme court of the quorum it needs to hold Prosser accountable if it determines that the allegations against him have merit.

All three of Prosser’s fellow conservatives have now signed onto this plan:

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman becomes the third member of the state’s high court to recuse himself from hearing the complaint against fellow Justice David Prosser.

Gableman made the expected announcement yesterday. Justices Annette Ziegler and Pat Roggensack had already said they wouldn’t take part in consideration of the complaint by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission.

Prosser argued that his fellow justices could not sit on his case because most of them witnessed the alleged choking incident. Yet, while it is usually true that a judge should not sit on a case where they are also a witness, that normal rule should not have applied here. Courts normally apply a “rule of necessity” to these sorts of cases which establishes that “a judge is not disqualified to [hear] a case because of a personal interest in the matter at issue if ‘the case cannot be heard otherwise.’”

Gableman, who provided the final vote immunizing Prosser, benefited in the past from a similar vote by his conservative colleagues. An ethics case against Gabelman for running a false ad against his predecessor was dropped his fellow conservatives voted to effectively kill it.

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.