Wisconsin Supreme Court Election April 7
In Wisconsin April 7 is the spring nonpartisan election. The statewide issue is the election of a Supreme Court justice. Across the state there are many nonpartisan local government and school board positions on the ballot and 72 local school funding referendums for voters to approve or reject.
Historically voter turnout for spring elections has been low. These races don’t get a lot of press coverage and don’t usually have controversial issues at stake. But that doesn’t mean they are not important elections. Local communities can be severely impacted when an unpopular faction takes control of local government. Do you want a racist police chief or a religious nut running the schools or an anti-tax cabal controlling the road maintenance? Then perhaps you should pay attention to local elections.
This year the Supreme Court race is not as critical as last year. The outcome will not affect the current liberal majority on the court. Even if the conservative candidate wins the liberals will still have a 4 to 3 majority. But this can change especially with the next four years having four more Supreme Court elections.
Voters who want Wisconsin to continue moving forward should remember that without the current liberal majority on the Supreme Court severely gerrymandered legislative districts would still be in place. Voting suppression tactics, like outlawing sensible ballot drop boxes, would still be legal and making voting unnecessarily difficult. Also an 1849 law would be preventing women from controlling their own reproductive health.
Don’t be fooled by the nonpartisan label. Judges are political animals and their rulings impact political decisions that affect all our lives. Don’t be fooled by the conservative candidates claiming they will ignore their personal beliefs and won’t “legislate from the bench.” All judges are human and are impacted by their backgrounds, beliefs and values. This is why you must vote for the judge that most closely matches your beliefs and values.
There are plenty of examples of “nonpartisan” judges putting their ideological, partisan thumbs on the scales of justice. The current U.S. Supreme Court and the former conservative controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court are case studies in “judicial activism” promoting partisan objectives. So don’t believe them when they pontificate about “original intent” or adhering to the text of the laws. There are reasons why business lobbyists and conservative groups pour millions into state court elections. They expect – and often get – return on investment.
Most court cases don’t involve culture war or politically charged disputes. They involve mundane issues like business contracts, property disputes or personal damage suits. But there will be cases coming before the Wisconsin Supreme Court with broader impact like voting procedures, data centers, school funding, police accountability, gun control, environmental enforcement or other politically controversial issues.
Judge Maria Lazar is the conservative candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Judge Lazar says, “I have practiced for about 20 years in private practice in Milwaukee [business litigation and bankruptcy], five years as an Assistant Attorney General for the Wisconsin Department of Justice in Madison, seven years as a Circuit Court Judge in Waukesha, and now three years on the Court of Appeals…”
Judge Lazar’s says she does not belong to any political party. This is fine, and appropriate. But a closer look at her background indicates she is in philosophy, if not membership, a Republican and will be reliable vote for the conservative agenda.
On her campaign website Judge Lazar says, “We need to stop the destruction of our courts…It’s time to restore justice and impartiality to our courts.” Implied in this statement is her political belief that the current liberal majority is destructive to justice.
On her judicial philosophy Judge Lazar says, “As a judge, I endeavor to respect the law and look for the meaning and intent of its drafters while honoring the rights and liberties of all Americans.” She oddly cites a federal court case (Halbig v. Burwell) as an example judicial “respect” for the text of a law. The case was a politically motivated attempt by Republicans to undermine the Affordable Care Act. The trial court ruled against the Republicans, the court of appeals overturned that ruling (which Lazar supports) but the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the trial court decision (King v. Burwell). Her citing the appeals court ruling shows she is willing to a support political interpretations of the law.