State Supreme Court candidates pledge to be impartial, put political beliefs aside

 

MADISON, Wis. (CBS 58) -- The four candidates vying for a seat on Wisconsin Supreme Court all pledged to be fair and impartial if elected despite political groups poised to spend millions in the race which will decide the ideological balance of the court.

While the race is nonpartisan, the two liberal leaning candidates are Dane County Circuit Court Judge Everett Mitchell and Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Janet Protasiewicz. Former Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly and Waukesha County Judge Jennifer Dorow are both conservatives in the race.

It was the first time all four candidates shared a debate stage. During the event, hosted by Wispolitics, the candidates pledged to not allow outside spending by political parties to influence how they may rule from the bench. However, Mitchell and Protasiewicz both spoke about their values and indicated how they might rule on controversial issues such as abortion, and redistricting.

When asked what they believed was the worst ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, both liberal candidates cited the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

"It was the first time in my study of the law the Supreme Court took away a right that had been a right for people for over 50 years," Mitchell said. "And we're dealing with the consequences."

Dorow did not answer the question but in her judicial appointment application she cited the overturning of a 2003 anti-sodomy law in Texas as the worst decision by the high court. Kelly referenced the 2005 Kelo v. New London case where the court ruled the government has the authority to take privately-owned land and turn it over to a private developer.

On the topic of redistricting, Protasiewicz said the current district maps submitted by Republican lawmakers and enacted by the state's high court were "rigged."

"They do not reflect the people of this state," said Protasiewicz. "They do not reflect accurate representation in the state Assembly or Senate. They are rigged. Period."

Kelly critiqued Protasiewicz for sharing her strong beliefs.

"When someone tells you what their values are in an answer to a legal question, they are telling you how they will decide a case," Kelly said.

Each candidate also promised to recuse themselves if a conflict of interest arises.

Throughout the debate, Dorow often read from pre-written remarks and did not fully respond to questions related issues court is anticipated to hear, such as, voting laws, gun rights, and possible challenges to Republicans Legislative and Congressional maps.

"I will not put myself in a position to prejudge anything," Dorow said. "But as with any case, I will listen to the challenge, and I will apply the law to the facts at hand."

Kelly, who touted his judicial background as a former Justice, took a similar approach on the debate stage. When asked about redistricting, Kelly said he would weigh legal aspects not incorporate political beliefs.

"If we are going to make sure our courts exist wholly and only for the purpose of deciding legal questions, then we can't let our values or personal politics reorient what the branches of government are supposed to do," Kelly said.

The primary to narrow the field to two candidates will be held on Feb. 21. The two candidates who receive the most votes will then advance to the April 4 general election.