wherever you get your podcasts. With more on the
statewide race. Elections for Wisconsin Supreme Court
have become more expensive and more partizan than ever
before. And while justices on the court are
technically independent, they are easily sorted into
liberal and conservative groups that can create an
appearance of bias in the eyes of some people, and
has led to an increase in the number of requests for
justices to recuse themselves from a case
"Here& Now". Senior political reporter Zac
Schultz has more. >> So that's when I say yes,
those maps are rigged. >> In 2023, Janet
Protasiewicz ushered in a new era in Wisconsin
Supreme Court elections by openly talking about her
values. While on the campaign trail, she called
legislative maps passed by Republicans and adopted by
the Supreme Court rigged. Since then, multiple
lawsuits filed against those maps have come before
the court, and each time lawyers representing the
Republicans have asked Protasiewicz to recuse
herself, resting part of their case on this very
interview she conducted with us each time she said
no, concluding the presumption of impartiality
stands. I therefore deny the motion for my recusal.
>> Recusal is important in the sense that it is part
of this big picture notion that people are entitled to
unbiased adjudicators. >> Rob Yablon is a
professor at the UW Law School. Most judicial
recusals come from a judge who's already weighed in on
a case, or who has a financial or personal
relationship with one of the parties, but that
doesn't include campaign contributions or statements
from the campaign trail. >> The expectation is that
under the current rules, that judges and justices
won't step aside because of their discussions of issues
or values on the campaign trail, or because of money
they've received. >> Under the Wisconsin
Supreme Court's own guidelines. Each justice
decides for themselves if they should recuse. We
asked the candidates in this Supreme Court election
about their recusal standards.
>> I follow the rules set by the U.S. Supreme Court
as well as by the state of Wisconsin. I've had to look
at different circumstances and decide when and how to
recuse. And I always look at not only is it
objectively, but subjectively biased. So if
there's an appearance of impropriety, then I will
take a step back. >> I'm instructed by my
ethical obligations to look at each case on a case by
case basis and make sure that I can be fair and
impartial. And that's what I do every day.
>> Two current cases have shown a new tactic in
recusal requests. Former Supreme Court Justice Mike
Gableman and lawyer Jim Troupis have each attempted
to remove enough justices through recusal to change
the makeup of the court that would hear their case
in 2020. Troupis represented the Trump
campaign as they attempted to throw out more than
200,000 votes in Dane and Milwaukee counties. In oral
arguments, he sparred with Justice Jill Karofsky.
>> And what you want is you want us to overturn this
election so that your king can stay in power. And that
is so un-American. >> Troupis lost that case,
but at the same time, he was the lawyer behind
Wisconsin's false elector scheme, an effort to send
an alternate slate of electoral votes to
Washington, DC on January 6th. For that, he's been
charged by the Wisconsin attorney general with
forgery, and Troupis claims all the judges in Dane
County are biased and should recuse. His motions
were rejected, and while appealing to the Wisconsin
Supreme Court, he asked Justices Jill Karofsky and
Rebecca Dallet to recuse based on their comments in
the Trump v Biden case. >> My investigation is just
that an investigation into the extent to which
elections in Wisconsin have been conducted in
compliance with the law. >> Meanwhile, Gableman was
hired to investigate Republican claims of fraud
during the 2020 election. His investigation found no
fraud, but it was determined he violated the
open records law repeatedly. >> And under my firm belief
that this judge has abandoned his role as a
neutral magistrate and is acting as an advocate.
>> And when in Dane County Court, he insulted the
judge and opposing counsel. A report by the Office of
Lawyer Regulation found ten violations committed by
Gableman, and he recommended he lose his law
license for three years. Final action belongs to the
Supreme Court, and Gableman has asked three different
members to recuse themselves. Justices
Protasiewicz and Karofsky said no. While Justice
Crawford did recuse not because of Gableman's
request, but because she was a Dane County judge
during his court case. >> My strong sense is that
the volume of recusal requests that we've seen
over the past year or two are more than we've ever
seen before in Wisconsin, and the nature of those
requests really tends to be quite political.
>> Yablon says. Whether the recusal requests get
justices to sit out the case or not, the request
itself is a message to the public.
>> Maybe the goal is actually to try to change
the composition of the court in a way that you
think will help you, but at the very least, it is an
attempt maybe to raise some doubts about whether we
should give credence to the legal decision that this
body is issuing. body is issuing.