1
00:00:02,736 --> 00:00:05,939
wherever you get your
podcasts. With more on the

2
00:00:06,006 --> 00:00:09,176
statewide race. Elections
for Wisconsin Supreme Court

3
00:00:09,243 --> 00:00:12,246
have become more expensive
and more partizan than ever

4
00:00:12,312 --> 00:00:15,382
before. And while justices
on the court are

5
00:00:15,449 --> 00:00:18,452
technically independent,
they are easily sorted into

6
00:00:18,519 --> 00:00:21,788
liberal and conservative
groups that can create an

7
00:00:21,855 --> 00:00:24,558
appearance of bias in the
eyes of some people, and

8
00:00:24,625 --> 00:00:28,061
has led to an increase in
the number of requests for

9
00:00:28,128 --> 00:00:31,298
justices to recuse
themselves from a case

10
00:00:31,365 --> 00:00:33,567
"Here& Now". Senior
political reporter Zac

11
00:00:33,634 --> 00:00:37,137
Schultz has more.
>> So that's when I say yes,

12
00:00:37,204 --> 00:00:41,141
those maps are rigged.
>> In 2023, Janet

13
00:00:41,208 --> 00:00:43,510
Protasiewicz ushered in a
new era in Wisconsin

14
00:00:43,577 --> 00:00:46,547
Supreme Court elections by
openly talking about her

15
00:00:46,613 --> 00:00:49,483
values. While on the
campaign trail, she called

16
00:00:49,550 --> 00:00:52,119
legislative maps passed by
Republicans and adopted by

17
00:00:52,186 --> 00:00:55,923
the Supreme Court rigged.
Since then, multiple

18
00:00:55,989 --> 00:00:58,358
lawsuits filed against
those maps have come before

19
00:00:58,425 --> 00:01:01,962
the court, and each time
lawyers representing the

20
00:01:02,029 --> 00:01:04,164
Republicans have asked
Protasiewicz to recuse

21
00:01:04,231 --> 00:01:07,668
herself, resting part of
their case on this very

22
00:01:07,734 --> 00:01:10,971
interview she conducted
with us each time she said

23
00:01:11,038 --> 00:01:14,241
no, concluding the
presumption of impartiality

24
00:01:14,308 --> 00:01:18,278
stands. I therefore deny
the motion for my recusal.

25
00:01:18,345 --> 00:01:21,248
>> Recusal is important in
the sense that it is part

26
00:01:21,315 --> 00:01:24,918
of this big picture notion
that people are entitled to

27
00:01:24,985 --> 00:01:27,487
unbiased adjudicators.
>> Rob Yablon is a

28
00:01:27,554 --> 00:01:31,592
professor at the UW Law
School. Most judicial

29
00:01:31,658 --> 00:01:33,961
recusals come from a judge
who's already weighed in on

30
00:01:34,027 --> 00:01:37,164
a case, or who has a
financial or personal

31
00:01:37,231 --> 00:01:39,867
relationship with one of
the parties, but that

32
00:01:39,933 --> 00:01:42,803
doesn't include campaign
contributions or statements

33
00:01:42,870 --> 00:01:46,607
from the campaign trail.
>> The expectation is that

34
00:01:46,673 --> 00:01:49,610
under the current rules,
that judges and justices

35
00:01:49,676 --> 00:01:53,547
won't step aside because of
their discussions of issues

36
00:01:53,614 --> 00:01:55,916
or values on the campaign
trail, or because of money

37
00:01:55,983 --> 00:01:58,218
they've received.
>> Under the Wisconsin

38
00:01:58,285 --> 00:02:00,988
Supreme Court's own
guidelines. Each justice

39
00:02:01,054 --> 00:02:03,957
decides for themselves if
they should recuse. We

40
00:02:04,024 --> 00:02:06,226
asked the candidates in
this Supreme Court election

41
00:02:06,293 --> 00:02:08,762
about their recusal
standards.

42
00:02:08,829 --> 00:02:11,598
>> I follow the rules set
by the U.S. Supreme Court

43
00:02:11,665 --> 00:02:14,401
as well as by the state of
Wisconsin. I've had to look

44
00:02:14,468 --> 00:02:17,571
at different circumstances
and decide when and how to

45
00:02:17,638 --> 00:02:20,374
recuse. And I always look
at not only is it

46
00:02:20,440 --> 00:02:22,709
objectively, but
subjectively biased. So if

47
00:02:22,776 --> 00:02:25,779
there's an appearance of
impropriety, then I will

48
00:02:25,846 --> 00:02:28,515
take a step back.
>> I'm instructed by my

49
00:02:28,582 --> 00:02:31,752
ethical obligations to look
at each case on a case by

50
00:02:31,818 --> 00:02:34,588
case basis and make sure
that I can be fair and

51
00:02:34,655 --> 00:02:36,690
impartial. And that's what
I do every day.

52
00:02:36,757 --> 00:02:39,226
>> Two current cases have
shown a new tactic in

53
00:02:39,293 --> 00:02:42,829
recusal requests. Former
Supreme Court Justice Mike

54
00:02:42,896 --> 00:02:45,566
Gableman and lawyer Jim
Troupis have each attempted

55
00:02:45,632 --> 00:02:48,669
to remove enough justices
through recusal to change

56
00:02:48,735 --> 00:02:51,104
the makeup of the court
that would hear their case

57
00:02:51,171 --> 00:02:54,708
in 2020. Troupis
represented the Trump

58
00:02:54,775 --> 00:02:57,344
campaign as they attempted
to throw out more than

59
00:02:57,411 --> 00:03:00,814
200,000 votes in Dane and
Milwaukee counties. In oral

60
00:03:00,881 --> 00:03:04,384
arguments, he sparred with
Justice Jill Karofsky.

61
00:03:04,451 --> 00:03:07,454
>> And what you want is you
want us to overturn this

62
00:03:07,521 --> 00:03:10,757
election so that your king
can stay in power. And that

63
00:03:10,824 --> 00:03:15,329
is so un-American.
>> Troupis lost that case,

64
00:03:15,395 --> 00:03:18,165
but at the same time, he
was the lawyer behind

65
00:03:18,232 --> 00:03:20,767
Wisconsin's false elector
scheme, an effort to send

66
00:03:20,834 --> 00:03:23,570
an alternate slate of
electoral votes to

67
00:03:23,637 --> 00:03:27,474
Washington, DC on January
6th. For that, he's been

68
00:03:27,541 --> 00:03:30,043
charged by the Wisconsin
attorney general with

69
00:03:30,110 --> 00:03:32,846
forgery, and Troupis claims
all the judges in Dane

70
00:03:32,913 --> 00:03:36,583
County are biased and
should recuse. His motions

71
00:03:36,650 --> 00:03:39,486
were rejected, and while
appealing to the Wisconsin

72
00:03:39,553 --> 00:03:42,523
Supreme Court, he asked
Justices Jill Karofsky and

73
00:03:42,589 --> 00:03:45,559
Rebecca Dallet to recuse
based on their comments in

74
00:03:45,626 --> 00:03:50,163
the Trump v Biden case.
>> My investigation is just

75
00:03:50,230 --> 00:03:53,000
that an investigation into
the extent to which

76
00:03:53,066 --> 00:03:55,502
elections in Wisconsin have
been conducted in

77
00:03:55,569 --> 00:03:58,038
compliance with the law.
>> Meanwhile, Gableman was

78
00:03:58,105 --> 00:04:00,707
hired to investigate
Republican claims of fraud

79
00:04:00,774 --> 00:04:04,444
during the 2020 election.
His investigation found no

80
00:04:04,511 --> 00:04:06,914
fraud, but it was
determined he violated the

81
00:04:06,980 --> 00:04:10,717
open records law repeatedly.
>> And under my firm belief

82
00:04:10,784 --> 00:04:14,221
that this judge has
abandoned his role as a

83
00:04:14,288 --> 00:04:17,491
neutral magistrate and is
acting as an advocate.

84
00:04:17,558 --> 00:04:19,826
>> And when in Dane County
Court, he insulted the

85
00:04:19,893 --> 00:04:23,330
judge and opposing counsel.
A report by the Office of

86
00:04:23,397 --> 00:04:27,100
Lawyer Regulation found ten
violations committed by

87
00:04:27,167 --> 00:04:29,436
Gableman, and he
recommended he lose his law

88
00:04:29,503 --> 00:04:33,006
license for three years.
Final action belongs to the

89
00:04:33,073 --> 00:04:35,642
Supreme Court, and Gableman
has asked three different

90
00:04:35,709 --> 00:04:39,046
members to recuse
themselves. Justices

91
00:04:39,112 --> 00:04:41,982
Protasiewicz and Karofsky
said no. While Justice

92
00:04:42,049 --> 00:04:45,152
Crawford did recuse not
because of Gableman's

93
00:04:45,219 --> 00:04:47,588
request, but because she
was a Dane County judge

94
00:04:47,654 --> 00:04:51,091
during his court case.
>> My strong sense is that

95
00:04:51,158 --> 00:04:53,794
the volume of recusal
requests that we've seen

96
00:04:53,861 --> 00:04:56,763
over the past year or two
are more than we've ever

97
00:04:56,830 --> 00:05:00,267
seen before in Wisconsin,
and the nature of those

98
00:05:00,334 --> 00:05:03,637
requests really tends to be
quite political.

99
00:05:03,704 --> 00:05:06,373
>> Yablon says. Whether the
recusal requests get

100
00:05:06,440 --> 00:05:09,142
justices to sit out the
case or not, the request

101
00:05:09,209 --> 00:05:11,945
itself is a message to the
public.

102
00:05:12,012 --> 00:05:14,081
>> Maybe the goal is
actually to try to change

103
00:05:14,147 --> 00:05:17,050
the composition of the
court in a way that you

104
00:05:17,117 --> 00:05:20,053
think will help you, but at
the very least, it is an

105
00:05:20,120 --> 00:05:22,055
attempt maybe to raise some
doubts about whether we

106
00:05:22,122 --> 00:05:23,891
should give credence to the
legal decision that this

107
00:05:23,957 --> 00:05:27,094
body is issuing.
body is issuing.