THE ROAD THAN WHAT PEOPLE THINK.
>> IN "HERE AND NOW" 2023
ELECTION REPORTING, THE SECOND
IN OUR SERIES OF INTERVIEWS WITH
THE CANDIDATES RUNNING IN THE
FEBRUARY 21 PRIMARY FOR THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.
THERE ARE FOUR PRIMARY
CANDIDATES VYING FOR TWO SPOTS
MOVING TO THE APRIL 4 GENERAL
ELECTION, TWO CONSERVATIVES AND
TWO LIBERALS, AND WHOEVER WINS
WILL DETERMINE THE IDEOLOGICAL
BALANCE OF THE COURT.
MILWAUKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT JUDGE
JANET PROTASIEWICZ IS ONE OF THE
LIBERALS IN THE RACE.
SHE WAS A MILWAUKEE COUNTY
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR
26 YEARS BEFORE BEING ELECTED TO
THE MILWAUKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT IN 2014.
HERE'S SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER
ZAC SCHULTZ WITH JUDGE
PROTASIEWICZ.
>> WHAT WERE SOME OF THE REASONS
THAT MADE YOU DECIDE TO WANT TO
ENTER THE RACE?
>> HOW CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THE
RACE IS.
AND HOW CRITICALLY HIGH THE
STAKES IN THIS RACE ARE.
I WAS AT A PRETTY COMFORTABLE
POSITION IN MY LIFE, QUITE
FRANKLY, AND I SAT ABOUT BACK BD
STARTED THINKING ABOUT THIS RACE
LAST SPRING.
THE MORE I THOUGHT ABOUT IT, THE
MORE I COULDN'T SIT BACK AND LET
PARTISAN FAR RIGHT EXTREMISTS
HIJACK OUR SUPREME COURT.
BECAUSE EVERYTHING WE CARE ABOUT
IS ON THE LINE.
EVERYTHING I CARE ABOUT IS ON
THE LINE.
I THINK THAT EVERYTHING MANY,
MANY PEOPLE CARE ABOUT IS ON THE
LINE.
I'VE HAD CONTESTED RACES.
I LIKE TO CAMPAIGN.
I LIKE PEOPLE.
THE ISSUES ARE SO ABSOLUTELY
CRITICAL.
I DECIDED TO GET INTO THE RACE.
>> HOW DID YOU COME TO THE
DECISION ON HOW YOU WOULD TALK
TO VOTERS ABOUT WHAT YOU CARE
ABOUT VERSUS SOME OTHER
CANDIDATES IN THIS ELECTION WHO
ARE TRYING TO KEEP EVERYTHING
PRETTY PLAIN, TALKING ABOUT THE
LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION?
>> WELL, RIGHT, AND, I MEAN, I
THINK THAT WE PRETTY MUCH KNOW
HOW MUCH PEOPLE CARE ABOUT
CERTAIN ISSUES.
WE PRETTY MUCH KNOW.
SO MY POSITION REALLY IS PEOPLE
WHO ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW, THAT'S
A PERSONAL CHOICE OF THEIRS, I
SUPPOSE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY MAY NOT
WISH TO SHARE WHAT THEIR VALUES
OR IDEAS ARE ON SOME OF THE
ISSUES THAT ARE REALLY, REALLY
IMPORTANT TO VOTERS.
SO WHEN I TALK TO VOTERS, I SAY
I CAN TELL YOU WHAT MY VALUES
ARE.
I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT I WILL DO
ON ANY PARTICULAR CASE.
BUT I'LL TELL YOU WHAT MY VALUES
ARE, I TELL YOU WHAT I THINK IS
IMPORTANT.
AND THAT'S REALLY HOW I FRAME IT
WHEN I TALK TO PEOPLE, BECAUSE
OBVIOUSLY I HAVE TO FOLLOW THE
CONSTITUTION.
OBVIOUSLY I HAVE TO FOLLOW THE
LAW.
BUT PEOPLE ARE VERY, VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT A WIDE VARIETY
OF ISSUES.
THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT WOMEN'S
RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT FAIR
MAPS.
THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT
COMMUNITY SAFETY.
THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT CLEAN
WATER.
THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT MARRIAGE
EQUALITY.
SO WE TALK ABOUT THOSE ISSUES IN
TERMS OF WHAT MY VALUES ARE.
>> SO HOW DO YOUR VALUES THEN
TRANSLATE TO DECISIONS FROM THE
BENCH?
>> WELL, I STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW
THE CONSTITUTION.
I HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
BUT I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT
THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT ABILITY
TO INTERPRET THE LAWS.
THERE'S SIGNIFICANT THINGS THAT
CAN BE EXHIBIT PRI INTERPRETED T
WAYS AND YOU CAN TELL THAT JUST
BASED ON HOW COURTS SPLIT ON
THEIR DECISIONS AND HOW THERE
CAN BE A VERY WELL REASONED
OPINION AND A VERY WELL REASONED
DISSENT, RIGHT?
SO YOU CAN TELL THAT THERE ARE,
YOU KNOW, WELL-THOUGHT-OUT
DECISIONS ON BOTH SIDES, WITH BT
IT'S PRETTY CLEAR TO ME, IT'S
VERY, VERY CLEAR TO ME, THAT
WOMEN AND MEN IN THIS STATE ARE
VERY, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT A
WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
VERY, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IT.
AND SO I TELL THEM, YOU KNOW,
YOU SHOULD KNOW MY VALUE.
AND MY VALUE IS THAT BOTTOM LINE
IS, YOU KNOW, DISCUSS THE ISSUE
WITH YOUR CLERGY, DISCUSS IT
WITH YOUR MEDICAL CARE PROVIDER,
DISCUSS IT WITH YOUR FAMILY OR
YOUR SIGNIFICANT OTHER, BUT IN
THE END, THAT DECISION IS REALLY
YOUR DECISION.
THAT'S WHAT MY VALUE IS.
WHERE WOULD YOU COME DOWN ON IF
A CASE WAS BROUGHT IN FRONT OF
THE COURT?
THAT'S A SEPARATE EVALUATION.
>> ALONG THIS PATH TOWARDS
ANNOUNCING AND RUNNING, DID
ANYONE SAY, WELL, MAYBE YOU
SHOULDN'T BROADCAST THOSE VALUES
SO LOUDLY.
IN THIS KIND OF CAMPAIGN, MAYBE
THIS IS -- YOU SHOULD CODE YOUR
LANGUAGE A LITTLE MORE SO THE
VOTERS KNOW, WITH A WINK, WHAT
YOU INTEND BUT YOU DON'T SAY IT
SO PLAINLY.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHY I WOULD DO
THAT.
I MEAN, I CERTAINLY HEAR FROM
THE FAR RIGHT, SHE'S TELLING YOU
WHAT SHE'S GOING TO DO.
THE CRITICISM IS, IF SHE'S
TELLING YOU WHAT HER VALUES ARE,
SHE'S TELLING YOU WHAT SHE'S
GOING TO DO.
CERTAINLY I'VE HEARD THE
CRITICISM.
BUT I THINK VOTERS WANT TO KNOW.
I MEAN, THESE ISSUES ARE REALLY,
REALLY ON THE FOREFRONT.
THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF
VALUES A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
IS GOING TO BRING.
SO HERE'S WHAT I SAY TO THAT.
WE HAVE HAD SO MUCH EXTREMISM,
WE HAVE HAD SO MUCH OF A THUMB
ON THE SCALE, WE HAVE HAD SO
MUCH WHERE YOU CAN KIND OF
PREDETERMINE WHAT THE OUTCOME OF
A CASE IS GOING TO BE, AND
THAT'S JUST ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
YOU NEED A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
WHO'S GOING TO FOLLOW THE LAW,
AND UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.
THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED.
AND SO YOU NEED TO, LIKE, LET
PEOPLE KNOW WHAT YOU'RE
THINKING.
COMMON SENSE DOESN'T CHANGE.
TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM ALL OF
THE EXTREMISM AND BRING COMMON
SENSE AND CHANGE TO OUR SUPREME
COURT.
AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT I KEEP
GOING BACK TO, COMMON SENSE AND
CHANGE.
AND THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WANT.
THEY'RE TIRED OF THE DYSFUNCTION
ON THE SUPREME COURT.
PEOPLE TELL ME THAT THEY THINK
THE COURTS SHOULD BE DIFFERENT,
WHOLLY DIFFERENT, THAN THE
LEGISLATURE AND FROM TIME TO
TIME THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
THEY SHOULD BE STEPS ABOVE.
THEY SHOULD BE PLACES OF
INTEGRITY.
AND IT IS SO DIFFERENT, THE ROLE
OF THE SUPREME COURT, AND THE
WAY THE SUPREME COURT
DISTINGUISHES ITSELF, FROM THE
LEGISLATURES AND SOMETIMES FROM,
YOU KNOW, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
IT'S VERY DIFFERENT.
AND YOU WANT TO BRING THAT BACK.
YOU WANT TO BRING BACK THAT
CHANGE, THAT COMMON SENSE, THAT
DECORUM, THAT DIGNITY, THAT
INTEGRITY TO THE SUPREME COURT.
>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER
CANDIDATES RUNNING IN THIS
PRIMARY, OBVIOUSLY I'M SURE YOU
WOULD SAY YOU ARE THE BEST
CHOICE FOR VOTERS, BUT DO YOU
THINK THE OTHER CANDIDATES ARE
ALSO QUALIFIED FOR THE SUPREME
COURT?
>> I DON'T.
I THINK YOU HAVE TWO PEOPLE ON
THE RIGHT WHO ARE VERY SIMILARLY
ALIGNED THAT ARE VERY EXTREME,
THAT DON'T REFLECT THE PEOPLE IN
THIS STATE.
I HAVE A FRIENDLY OPPONENT ON
THE LEFT.
MY OPINION IS I HAVE LONGER,
BROADER, DEEPER EXPERIENCE THAN
HE HAS.
SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE I
COME DOWN.
>> WHEN YOU HEAR FROM SOMEONE
LIKE DAN KELLY SAYING THAT,
WELL, WE CAN PREDICT HOW YOU
VOTE, YOU'RE SIGNALING TOO MUCH
BECAUSE OF WHERE YOUR BACKGROUND
IS, BUT HE CLAIMS THAT HE'S
COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT, AND NO
ONE WILL BE ABLE TO TELL, BUT
HE'S APPEARED AT TRUMP RALLIES,
HE'S BEEN ENDORSED BY
REPUBLICANS, HE WAS APPOINTED BY
A REPUBLICAN.
IS IT BETTER TO BE OUT AND OPEN
ABOUT WHERE YOUR SUPPORT IS OR
TO PRETEND THAT YOU'RE IN A
LANE?
>> WELL, PRETENDING YOU'RE IN A
LANE IS SO DISINGENUOUS.
I LOOK AT DAN KELLY, HE WAS
RECENTLY TOURING THE STATE WITH,
OF ALL PEOPLE, OF ALL PEOPLE,
MICHAEL GABELMAN ON AN ELECTION
INTEGRITY TOUR.
WHAT WERE THEY TRYING TO DO?
PEDDLE THE BIG LIE THAT THE 2020
ELECTION WAS STOLEN.
WE ALL KNOW THAT ELECTION WASN'T
STOLEN.
WE KNOW IN HIS LAST RACE, HE WAS
DOING SOME OF IF NOT ALL OF HIS
CAMPAIGNING OUT OF THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY HEADQUARTERS,
RIGHT?
SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN HE MADE THE
COMMENTS THAT HE MADE AT THE
FORUM, THEY'RE QUITE FRANKLY
LAUGHABLE.
THAT THOSE COULD COME OUT OF HIS
MOUTH.
WITH A STRAIGHT FACE.
>> ANOTHER OPPONENT IN THIS RACE
IS JENNIFER DOROW, AND SHE
GAINED FAME THROUGH APPEARING AS
A JUDGE WITH A LOT OF CELEBRITY
STATUS.
HOW MUCH SHOULD WE PUT INTO
THAT, PUSHING HER NAME
RECOGNITION FORWARD AND
ROCKET-FUELING HER CAMPAIGN?
IS THAT WHAT SHOULD QUALIFY HER
FOR THE BENCH?
>> NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
NOW, DARRELL BROOKS, A VERY
DIFFICULT, SO TO SPEAK,
DEFENDANT WHO COMMITTED SOME
VIOLENT, ATROCIOUS CRIMES, NO
DOUBT ABOUT IT, I'VE TOLD YOU
I'VE SPENT THREE YEARS IN
HOMICIDE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT
COURT, TWO YEARS WITH THOSE DRUG
DEALERS, A YEAR WITH THOSE
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENDERS.
DARRELL BROOKS' PERSONALITY IS
NOT A UNIQUE PERSONALITY.
I'VE SEEN HIS PERSONALITY IN
COURT OVER AND OVER AND OVER
WITH THE TYPES OF CASES THAT
I'VE HANDLED.
THAT'S OUR JOB AS A JUDGE, TO
HANDLE THAT TYPE OF PERSONALITY
AMONGST MANY OTHERS.
YOU KNOW, MY HOUSE HAS BEEN
UNDER SURVEILLANCE ON NUMEROUS
OCCASIONS BECAUSE OF THE TYPES
OF PEOPLE THAT I DEAL WITH,
BECAUSE OF THE DEATH THREATS
THAT, YOU KNOW, I HAVE HAD, YOU
KNOW, THAT AFFECT MYSELF, MY
FAMILY, MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO PROPELLING SOMEBODY INTO
RUNNING DUE TO ONE PARTICULAR
CASE, I THINK IS WHOLELY
INAPPROPRIATE.
>> WHAT HAVE YOU FELT IN TERMS
OF THE NATIONAL ATTENTION, GIVEN
THIS RACE, AND THAT WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT RACES USED TO BE
RELATIVELY SLEEPY, SO TO SPEAK,
AND NOW WE'VE GOT "NEW YORK
TIMES" ARTICLES TALKING ABOUT
THE MOST IMPORTANT RACE YOU
HAVEN'T HEARD.
>> YEAH, IT'S REALLY
INTERESTING, I HAVE TO SAY QUITE
FRANKLY I WAS SURPRISED,
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I SHARE THAT
ASSESSMENT.
USUALLY THESE SUPREME COURT
RACES ARE KIND OF SLEEPY AND
IT'S A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING TO
GET OUT THE VOTE AND IT A SPRING
ELECTION, AND IN WISCONSIN WE
KNOW THAT SPRING ELECTION IS A
PRIMARY IN FEBRUARY, WHICH IS
RIGHT IN THE HEART OF WINTER.
SO YES, I WAS, I WOULD HAVE TO