>> All right, governor Tony Evers, thanks for your time
today. >> Appreciate it.
>> The Wisconsin Supreme Court has completed its term
by releasing decisions in a number of high profile
cases, including A43 decision to overturn
Wisconsin's 1849 abortion ban. The end of the term
also means the end of the career of chief Justice Ann
Walsh. Bradley, who decided to retire after 30 years on
the High Court. I sat down with the Chief justice
recently to discuss her career and the future of the
court. Madam Chief Justice, thanks for your time.
>> Pleasure to be here. Zach.
>> Let's go back to the start. Can you imagine what
yourself in 1995 would think of where you are today, all
these years later? >> Well, it's been a journey
and the journey, of course, has been traveled by me. But
with surrounded by family and friends and colleagues.
To answer your question, I don't think I would have
seen myself as I am today. 30 years ago. That's right.
>> So Shirley Abrahamson was the first woman appointed to
the Wisconsin Supreme Court. But you were the first
elected. How far have we come in that? It's been
mostly women on the court today, and most people in
the modern era. This think of it's natural for women to
sit on the bench. >> Well, it's been we've
come a long ways. You know, that's a perhaps a worn out
phrase, but it holds some truth to it. When I got on
the circuit court in Marathon County, there were
only ten women judges in the entire state, and I was one
of three north of Madison. And Milwaukee. When I became
an attorney and went to Wausau, I remember that very
first day being welcomed by my supervisor with this, he
said, I want you to know I have no problem with a woman
trying to do a man's job. So it has been a journey from
the first days of being an attorney and then being a
circuit court judge. And till now we have six of the
seven members on our court are serving as women. So
that's a that's a long way. >> So it was just a couple
of years ago, the night that Janet Protasiewicz was
elected to be a member of the court. I happened to
interview you, and I said, you're up next. Have you
thought about whether you want to run? And you told
me, I'm going to run and I'm going to win.
>> Yes. >> Take us from that moment
to your decision that this was going to be the end of
your time on the bench. >> It was a difficult
decision. A decision that took me many months. I had
engaged services of someone who was going to be helping
me run the campaign. But ultimately, as I reflected,
I made lists of as most people or many people would
do of yes, I want to run or no, I should not run. And
the it was just time to pass the torch. I've been on the
court for 30 years, I'm told I have participated in
28,000 cases. 2400 oral arguments, 600 or so
opinions. And it was time to pass the torch to begin a
new chapter of my life. I don't look at this as
retirement because I have a number of things I want to
do and accomplish, but it's a new chapter.
>> When you first ran for the court, there wasn't
nearly the public attention, certainly not the money or
even the partisan involvement. You ran as a
nonpartisan and criticize accepting endorsements from
from conservative politicians. How how do you
view the elections that occur today? Even your
successor had to court the Democratic Party received
millions in fundraising. And yet has to try and claim
judicial independence when she takes the robes. How has
that altered how the justices see themselves and
how the public sees the court?
>> In 1995, when I ran that first race, I had as my
co-chairs, Tony Earl, who was the former Democratic
governor, and Sue Ann Thompson, who was the then
first lady. Her husband, Tommy Thompson, serving as
my co-chairs. I had strong bipartisan support, and I've
had strong bipartisan support in all of my
campaigns. But it's harder to get this is labeled as a
nonpartisan race. It's in April, right? That's when we
have the nonpartisan elections. And I am
concerned about the influx of partisanship in judicial
races. That's of great concern to me because I
think that it has a couple of effects. Number one, it
has an effect on the public trust and confidence in an
independent judiciary. And being independent not only
in substance but also in impression is important for
the public trust and confidence of the people. So
I think the influx of political parties and the
great amount of money is of concern.
>> The legal landscape surrounding the court has
changed as well. The amount of groups that exist only to
file lawsuits with the best hand-picked cases and
plaintiffs involved in order to find a crack in precedent
to overturn something. How how does that change how you
react from the bench when you know that this was, you
know, hand-selected just in order to try and reach the
opposite conclusion? >> Your question brings to
mind something my husband once said to me, because I
mentioned, you know, being involved in 28,000 cases and
all the oral arguments. He said, well, hasn't it all
been decided already? You know, there are so many
cases, but the answer is no. I get thrilled by the
presence of good arguments and good attorneys because
they really help the court develop the law. And when
new arguments are brought up, then we take a look at
the issue in the way it's framed, citing different
cases and different issues. >> Do you support change in
the Constitution to eliminate elections or alter
elections, or you talked about what other states do?
There's a lot of options out there. Do you have a
proposal that you would any proposal that I support,
but I do support looking at all sorts of different
options. As I know, groups and legislators are doing
right now because we have a challenge before us. And the
challenge is to make the selection of justices and
the campaigns. If we continue with campaigns,
better not for the sake of making a campaign better,
but for the sake of the 5.8 million people who call
Wisconsin home, they deserve a judiciary, that they have
trust and confidence in. >> How might that have
changed you becoming a member of the Supreme Court?
Because back in 1995, you may not have been either
selected to become on a list or appointed to this
process. You had to push your way onto it.
>> That's right. And about three weeks ago, I was on an
international webinar regarding election of
justices around the world. Now, there are not many
countries that elect their state supreme court
justices, or however they divide, whether it's a
province or an area. United States is one of the few.
And I made the comment then to this webinar attendees
that I probably wouldn't be on the Supreme Court if it
were not through election. I was not one of the favored
people. I mean, I didn't have inside track
information or path, right? It was good old fashioned
retail campaigning around the state. And I won. So I
am not quick to say, let's get rid of elections. Not at
all. I am quick to say, let's see how they can
become better. And if we can't make them what they
should be, then let's look at other options.