Wisconsin is about to elect a new state Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Michael J. Gableman, who is not seeking reelection after his term ends this year. Vying for Gableman’s seat are Madison attorney Timothy W. Burns, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Rebecca Dallet and Sauk County Circuit Court Judge Michael Screnock.
Although Supreme Court elections are officially nonpartisan, politics have loomed over this race from the beginning. Screnock has the support of conservatives, while Dallet is considered a liberal-leaning centrist. Burns, meanwhile, has broken with convention by openly running as a Democrat and progressive, calling the pretense of apolitical judges a “fairy tale.”
Gretchen Schuldt is executive director of the Wisconsin Justice Initiative, which asked each of the candidates to fill out extensive questionnaires to help inform voters’ decisions. Schuldt sees no problem with candidates being “up front” about their politics, noting the obvious partisan bent in the court today.
“We know how it’s going to turn out every time,” she says of the current conservative five-to-two majority on the court. “There are very few surprises on this Supreme Court.” Schuldt says the current race is an important one, bringing change to a court that at this point is “not a reliable mechanism for justice.”
The following three candidates will be on the ballot for the Tuesday, Feb. 20, primary, where the top two vote-getters will move on to the general election on Tuesday, April 3.
Tim Burns
Tim Burns is a partner at the Madison law firm Perkins Coie, where he specializes in issues dealing with insurance companies. While he has never served as a judge, the first-time candidate says he has spent his career standing up to large companies and will stand up to Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-controlled legislature as well.
A longtime Democratic donor and champion of liberal causes, Burns has distinguished himself by openly asserting his political views. “I believe strongly that our democracy requires candor with voters,” he says. “As a people, we get into trouble when politicians and judges aren’t candid with voters. I wouldn’t have considered running any other way.”
|
|
Since announcing his decision to run last May, Burns has promoted the need for a strong middle-class economy and condemned the growing concentration of wealth, as well as the judiciary’s failure to curb it. “Our courts have been looking out for special interests and giant conglomerates instead of looking out for regular people,” he says.
In a perfect world, Burns says, campaigns would be publicly funded to curtail the influence of money on voters and justices alike. As it is, he supports enacting a rule requiring justices to recuse themselves from cases involving their campaign donors. A proposal for such a recusal rule was voted down (five to two) in April 2017. “I don’t know why anyone would want to sit on a case when they’ve received that kind of benefit, because it makes it look like justice is for sale,” he says.
In addition to his outspoken critiques of the court system, Burns has been upfront about the type of issues that would concern him most as a justice. He says that he is “horribly troubled” by the mass incarceration of people of color in Wisconsin, and the destruction of the state’s natural resources. He is also concerned with the protection of civil rights, workers’ rights, reproductive rights and the right to a fair trial. “As a Supreme Court Justice, I would hope that there were cases that brought up these issues so I could look deeply at them,” he says.
Burns has been endorsed by several Democratic lawmakers, as well as Our Wisconsin Revolution—a liberal political organization inspired by Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign. Burns says he is grateful to have support both from “traditional Democratic” sources and the progressive movement. “It takes a lot of work to change a system that is failing so badly,” he says. “I’m cognizant that I’m just one person standing on a lot of people’s shoulders.”
Rebecca Dallet
Rebecca Dallet has served on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court for 10 years and as a prosecutor for 11 years before that. In court, Dallet says, she sees firsthand how the state’s most pressing troubles, from environmental threats to the opioid crisis, shape individual lives. She suggests that people are also profoundly affected by political dysfunction at the state and national level. “People are worried in general,” she says. “There’s a feeling that our rights are under attack.”
Judge Dallet has handled hundreds of jury trials and presided over thousands of cases, both criminal and civil. She says that advocacy for women has been a focus throughout her career, from prosecuting sexual predators to overseeing domestic violence courts and educating judges around the country how to handle the issue of domestic violence. “I have worked for more than 20 years in our courts to fight for our rights, stand up for the vulnerable and protect victims,” she says.
As a left-leaning moderate, Dallet is competing with Burns for liberal votes. In January, her campaign released a TV spot blasting President Donald Trump for “attack[ing] our civil rights.” She spoke at the Wisconsin Democratic Party convention over the summer and has criticized the right-leaning Supreme Court’s Act 10 decision.
Still, Dallet rejects the claim that judges can’t be impartial and has said that an independent court is needed to restore the public’s confidence. “What we don’t need right now is another justice on the court that is going to be a rubber stamp on the Scott Walker agenda,” she says.
Rather than act as the “vital part of checks and balances” that it’s supposed to be, Dallet says the Wisconsin Supreme Court has been “broken” by partisanship, lack of transparency and the influence of special interests. She says a stricter recusal rule is necessary—referencing the 2015 John Doe case where Justices Michael Gableman and David Prosser declined to step down, even though some of the parties involved had spent millions of dollars on their campaigns.
“If we can’t trust justices to do it themselves because they’re motivated by political outcomes or donations, we clearly need to have a rule so the public can look at it objectively and know that it’s going to be fair,” she says. Dallet has received endorsements from roughly 175 judges across the state and says that her message is resonating with voters who are frustrated with the status quo.
“We have this new wave of energy, and we really can save civic society,” she says. “People are motivated to make the change that needs to be made. Let’s start with our Supreme Court.”
Michael Screnock
A Wisconsin native and judge on the Sauk County Circuit Court, Michael Screnock announced he was running in June, right after Justice Gableman said he wouldn’t seek re-election. Right-wing support has since gathered behind the candidate, who has said he shares Gableman’s judicial philosophy and “commitment to the rule of law.” Screnock could not be reached for comment.
Screnock worked in local government for more than a decade before pursuing a legal career. After law school, he was an attorney at Michael Best and Friedrich, where he assisted in creating the partisan district maps that sparked the current U.S. Supreme Court gerrymandering case. He also worked on the legal team defending the Act 10 legislation. Walker appointed Screnock to the circuit court in 2015.
Critics doubt the conservative Screnock—who, as a college student in 1989, was arrested twice while participating in anti-abortion protests—would be truly impartial as a Supreme Court justice. But the Sauk County judge has insisted his personal beliefs don’t influence his decisions. During a candidate forum hosted by the Federalist Society in January, he said that when presented with a case, “you do the research and you go where the law takes you. You do not decide how you want the case to come out and then find a path to it.”
Unlike his opponents, Screnock has avoided weighing in on specific issues or policies during the campaign, clinging to his judicial philosophy that the role of judges is to interpret and apply the law as written and “not legislate from the bench.” At the Federalist Society forum, he said, “the role of the court is to be arbiters of the law. Not political analysts or policy activists.”
Screnock’s endorsements include several current and former conservative-leaning judges and justices. These include both Gableman and former justice Prosser, who have been widely criticized for some of their actions on the state’s highest court, including their refusal to step down in the John Doe case. Screnock has indicated that he opposes stronger recusal rules, arguing that it is sufficient to allow justices to decide on a case-by-case basis whether they can be impartial.
Screnock’s campaign is advised by the Champion Group—a conservative political consulting firm. In January, the campaign released its first radio ad, titled “Rule of Law,” in which Screnock says his opponents are “campaigning as activists who will implement their policies from the bench.”
