RUNNING FOR THE WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT THIS SPRING.
WE'LL BE TALKING TO ALL THREE
THIS MONTH AND FIRST UP IS THE
INCUMBENT, JUSTICE DAN KELLY.
JUSTICE KELLY WAS APPOINTED TO
THE BENCH IN 2016 BY GOVERNOR
SCOTT WALKER.
BEFORE THAT, HE WAS IN PRIVATE
PRACTICE IN WAUKESHA.
JUSTICE KELLY, THANKS FOR YOUR
TIME TODAY.
>> THANKS SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME
ON.
>> YOU HAVE NEVER FACED THE
VOTERS OF WISCONSIN BEFORE.
WHY SHOULD THEY ELECT YOU TO A
FULL TEN-YEAR TERM ON THE COURT?
>> I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION.
I THINK THE ANSWER LIES IN MY
PHILOSOPHY, FAITHFULNESS TO THE
CONSTITUTION AND APPLYING ITS
TERMS THE WAY IT'SEN IT'S WRITTEN AND
MAINTAINED BY THE PEOPLE OF
WISCONSIN.
THERE'S A REAL REALLY IMPORTANT
REASON WHY THAT NEEDS TO BE THE
CASE.
AND IT LIES IN THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN,
THEIR CONSTITUTION AND THE
JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT.
SEE, WHEN I COME TO THE CHAMBERS
IN THE MORNING, I DON'T BRING
THE AUTHORITY WITH ME THAT I
EXERCISE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T
BELONG TO ME.
IT BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE.
THEY SIMPLY LOAN IT TO US
THROUGH THEIR CONSTITUTION.
THEY'VE STRUCTURED THAT
CONSTITUTION IN A WAY TO
ACCOMPLISH TWO VERY IMPORTANT
OBJECTIVES.
ONE IS SECURING THEIR FREEDOMS
AND LIBERTIES AND THE SECOND IS
PRESERVING LAW AND ORDER IN
THEIR COMMUNITIES.
SO OUR ROLE IN THAT IS TO SIMPLY
APPLY THE LAW AS IT EXISTS.
WE'RE THERE TO EXERCISE THE
JUDICIAL POWER TO APPLY THE LAW
TO THE CASE IN FRONT OF US.
PEOPLE HAVE NOT ASKED US TO
LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH.
SO DON'T MAKE THE LAW, WE
DON'T IGNORE THE LAW, WE DON'T
PLAY FAVORITES WITH THE LAW.
WE SIMPLY APPLY THE LAW WITH
SIMPLY FEAR NOR FAVOR FOR ANY
PERSON OR PARTY.
WHEN WE DO THAT, WE'RE FAITHFUL
TO THE TERMS OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
WHEN WE'RE FAITHFUL TO THE
CONSTITUTION, WE'RE FAITHFUL TO
THE PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN.
THAT PRESERVES THEIR FREEDOMS
AND LIBERTIES AND IT PRESERVES
SECURITY IN THE RULE OF LAW IN
THEIR COMMUNITIES.
>> YOU RECENTLY DECIDED TO
RECUSE YOURSELF FROM A CASE THAT
COULD COME BEFORE THE SUPREME
COURT REGARDING A CONSERVATIVE
GROUP'S EFFORT TO FORCE THE
REMOVAL OF 230,000 NAMES FROM
THE VOTER REGISTRATION ROLES.
WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO RECUSE?
>> WELL, MOSTLY BECAUSE OF WHAT
YOU JUST SA
THE CASE INVOLVES OVER 200,000
PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PARTICIPATING
OR NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE
ELECTION WHERE MY NAME WILL BE
ON THE BALLOT.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE
PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE DO
NOTHING BUT IMPARTIALLY APPLY
THE LAW WITHOUT RESPECT TO ANY
OUTSIDE INFLUENCES OR ANYTHING
THAT WOULD AFFECT ME PERSONALLY.
AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NOT
ONLY IS THAT TRUE IN FACT, BUT
THAT THE APPEARANCES OF THAT ARE
ALIGNED WITH WHAT IS ACTUALLY
FACTUAL.
AND SO I DECIDED TO RECUSE
MYSELF FROM THAT CASE.
>> JUSTICES HAVE BROAD AUTHORITY
ON WHEN TO RECUSE.
YOUR OPPONENTS HAVE SAID THEY
WOULD LIKE TO SEE TIGHTER RULES.
DO YOU THINK THE SYSTEM WORKS AS
IT IS?
>> WELL, I IT HAS BEEN
WORKING FOR A VERY LONG TIME THE
WAY THAT IT IS.
AND WHILE I'M ALWAYS OPEN TO
LOOKING AT POTENT POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS,
I THINK WE NEED TO BE SURE WHEN
WE DO THAT, WHEN WE LOOK AT
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MIGHT CALL
FOR A CHANGE, THAT WE DO IT IN A
WAY THAT DOES NOT INTRODUCE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR POLITICAL
GAMESMANSHIP AMONGST PARTIES OR
AMONGST THE MEMBERS OF THE
COURT.
SO I'M ALWAYS OPEN TO LOOKING AT
NEW PROPOSALS, BUT WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT IT ACCOMPLISHES
THE OBJECTIVE OF OUR RULES OF
RECUSAL, WHICH IS MAKING SURE
THAT WE DO THE JOB OF A JUSTICE,
THAT IS, IMPARTIALLY APPLYING
THE LAW TO THE CASE IN FRONT OF
US.
>> TECHNICALLY SUPREME COURT
ELECTIONS ARE NONPARTISAN, BUT
LATELY THAT'S BEEN IN NAME ONLY.
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ARE
INVOLVED IN CAMPAIGNS,
ORGANIZING VOTERS.
SO WHY IS IT WRONG FOR SOME
VOTERS TO ASSUME YOU REPRESENT
REPUBLICANS AND YOUR OPPONENTS
ARE REPRESENTING THE DEMOCRATS
IN THIS CASE?
>> I THINK IT'S A CATEGORY ERROR
TO SUGGEST THAT WE REPRESENT ONE
PARTY OR ANOTHER OR THEIR
ISSUES.
AS I MENTIONED, ONE OF THE
PRIMARY AND CENTRAL ASPECTS OF
MY JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY IS
SETTING ASIDE PERSONAL POLITICS
AND PERSONAL BELIEFS AND
POSITIONS AND SIMPLY APPLYING
THE LAW THE WAY IT EXISTS.
THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THAT ALLOWS
US TO PRESERVE FREEDOM AND
LIBERTIES AND LAW AND ORDER IN
OUR COMMUNITIES.
SO WHEN I WORK ON CASES, WHEN I
DECIDE CASES, WHEN I WRITE
OPINIONS, THE WAY I APPROACH IT
TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE THINGS
ARE PUT TO THE SIDE IS TO APPLY
RIGOROUS LOGIC.
WE HE START WITH THE START WITH THE PREMISES AND
USE RIGOROUS LOGIC TO WORK OUR
WAY DOWN TO THE CONCLUSION.
AND IF YOU DO THAT WELL AND
DILIGENTLY, THAT WILL SQUEEZE
OUT ANY OF YOUR PERSONAL
POLITICS OR ANY OF YOUR PERSONAL
POSITIONS OR BELIEFS, BECAUSE
LOGIC DOESN'T CARE ABOUT YOUR
POLITICS, RIGHT?
IT SIMPLY IS.
AND SO IF WE DO THAT WELL, THEN
WE'LL ALWAYS ARRIVE AT A
CONCLUSION THAT IS REQUIRED BY
THE LAW AND NOT BY OUR PERSONAL
PREFERENCES.
>> WE'VE GOT ABOUT A MINUTE
LEFT.
LAST YEAR DURING THE LAME DUCK
SESSION REPUBLICANS AND
LEGISLATION CONSIDERED MOVING
THE DATE OF THE SUPREME COURT
ELECTION TO GET AWAY FROM THE
PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY AND
POTENTIAL HIGHER TURNOUT AMONG
DEMOCRATS.
HOW WILL INCREASED VOTER TURNOUT
IMPACT YOUR ELECTION?
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO
IMPACT IT MUCH AT ALL.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS THIS.
I THINK PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN,
REGARDLESS OF THEIR POLITICAL
PARTY TO WHICH SUBSCRIBE, THEY
WANT THE SAME THING OUT OF
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.
THEY WANT A JUSTICE WHO WILL
APPLY THE LAW, WHO WON'T IN
THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS OR
POLITICS INTO THE
DECISION-MAKING.
SO WHETHER THERE'S MORE
DEMOCRATS THAT TURN OUT THAN
REPUBLICANS, I DON'T THINK
THAT'S GOING TO MATTER MUCH
BECAUSE I THINK THEY ALL WANT
BASICALLY THE SAME THING, A
JUSTICE WHO WILL JUST APPLY THE
LAW.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN DOING
SINCE 2016.
>> WERE YOU HOPING THAT THE DATE
WOULD GET CHANGED OR DID YOU
HAVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER THE
DATE SHOULD REMAIN?
>> WELL, I TRY NOT TO PEER INTO
THE FUTURE AND SEE WHAT MIGHT
OCCUR OR NOT OCCUR BASED ON
CHANGES LIKE THAT BECAUSE YOU
NEVER KNOW WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES
MIGHT BE.
SO I LOOK AT THE PEOPLE OF
WISCONSIN AND I HAVE FAITH THAT
WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR THE
ELECTION, THEY'RE GOING TO DO
THE RIGHT THING.
THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK FOR
SOMEONE WHO'S GOING TO BE
FAITHFUL TO THE CONSTITUTION.
AND I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO DO
THAT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER
THEY'RE DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS
OR INDEPENDENTS OR WHATEVER
OTHER POLITICAL PERSUASION THEY
MIGHT BE.
SO I INVITE THEM ALL TO COME
OUT, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE,
REGARDLESS OF THE PARTIES
THEY'RE AFFILIATED WITH.
COME OUT IN THE SUPREME COURT
ELECTION.
LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.
AND I'LL REST MY FAI