Now to tonight's Capitol Insight and State Supreme Court news.
Some tense moments at the high court yesterday as justices
rejected on a 5-2 vote a proposal that would have
required them to recuse themselves because of a certain
level of campaign contributions.
We look into this issue now with Shawn Johnson of Wisconsin
Public Radio.
Thanks for being here.
>> Thanks for having me.
>> This was a group of retired judges that brought this recusal
proposal before the court, right?
>> Right.
Essentially what it would have done is change from the system
we have now where it's up to judges and justices to decide
when or if they recuse themselves from cases and that
by the way is a recusal standard that says campaign contributions
are not a factor that they have to weigh when it comes to
whether or not to step down from a case.
This would have set a dollar standard and it said in the case
of Supreme Court candidates somebody gives the candidate
$10,000 or more and is a lawyer or a party to a case before the
court, that a Supreme Court justice would have to recuse
themselves from that case.
>> So we described tense moments on the court as part of all of
this.
What was that about?
>> That's pretty accurate.
You had among those who voted against the proposal, the
proposal recusal rules was Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley
who made it very clear she was against them.
She expressed being personally affronted by the rules.
Here's what she said.
>> Every judge and justice in the state of Wisconsin should be
highly offended by this petition because it attacks their
integrity and their character.
And I today defend every justice and judge in the state in
rejecting this petition.
>> Those opposed to such recusal say it is a violation of the
U.S.
Constitution because campaign donations are free speech.
The two justices in favor said that's not so and we have some
more sound.
This time from Justice Shirley Abrahamson.
>> I find nothing in the Wisconsin Constitution or the
United States Constitution that says this court cannot make
reasonable rules for recusal.
>> Meanwhile the U.S.
Supreme Court said the states could set recusal rules because
of donations from parties before the court.
>> And that's what you heard alluded to a couple of times
during this discussion this week from Justice Abrahamson is that
you have cases that have been before the court where the court
has said it's up to states if they want to set stricter
recusal standards, they can.
>> Meanwhile, kind of the mega money that has poured into
Wisconsin Supreme Court races is pretty staggering according to
the Brennan Center for Justice.
The last seven elections cost more than $1 million.
Four races cost more than $3 million and the 2011 race that
saw Justice Prosser re-elected cost more than $5 million.
But money coming from these outside interest groups also
doesn't factor into any judicial recusals in Wisconsin.
>> No.
And the judges who asked for these recusal standards did
allude to that outside money becoming a bigger factor in
Wisconsin.
They said especially in light of a recent State Supreme Court
case and a new law in Wisconsin that basically allowed for near
unfettered coordination between candidates for office and
interest groups that run issue ads.
They said this is a different playing field than it was in
2010 which is the last time they talked about recusal standards.
That was alluded to briefly in this discussion before the court
this week and essentially conservative justices said
that's not the issue in this situation.
>> Alluded to and rejected.
So is this the end of it then for recusal rule changes?
>> I think you can say it's the end of it with these justices.
We went into this thinking the five conservatives on the court
would probably vote against these recusal standards.
They did it.
It was a 5-2 vote with conservative/liberal blocks
sticking together on this one.
We do have a few elections coming up, though.
You have Justice Michael Gableman is up for re-election
in 2018.
Justice Shirley Abrahamson is up for re-election in 2019.
Justice Daniel Kelly up for his first election in 2020.
You're going to see this issue of money in the court coming up
again and again.
Whether elections change the outcome of the court
could determine whether or not
they actually revisit recusal standards.
>> All right. We leave it there Shawn.
Thanks very much. >> You're welcome.