The conservatives have controversially run the things for many years — don't just take my word for it, there's a whole section on Wikipedia about their misdeeds and unfair (not to mention, unsafe) orders. The court has also consistently sided with the Republican-controlled state legislature.
Dan Kelly, a former conservative justice of the court (who attained that status by appointment only, not election by the people), is vying to return to the bench. His main opponent is Judge Janet Protasiewicz, who is the liberal candidate.
 |
| Featured image credit: Channel 3000/YouTube, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 3.0) |
All signs point to Protasiewicz becoming the likely winner of the spring election, although things are still very, very close — so close that turnout, as usual, will be the ultimate determiner in the race.
Via Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball:
From what we can tell, Protasiewicz is a favorite, although given the marginal nature of Wisconsin, we wouldn’t rule out a Kelly win. … [T]he turnout dynamics don’t always mirror those of presidential (or partisan) races.As that analysis explains, all eyes will be on WOW Counties as well as turnout in Madison and Milwaukee.
Perhaps sensing things are tight but not quite going his way, Kelly's campaign has been tweeting up a storm, deriding Protasiewicz as being an unfit jurist. Kelly's personal account on Thursday, for example, suggested she would not consider the merits of cases but rather her own personal opinions on political issues when ruling.
"This election is about protecting the Rule of Law," Kelly wrote. "My opponent has promised to force her personal politics on everyone in Wisconsin. She would choose the Rule of Janet over the Rule of Law."
This is incredibly ironic conjecture, given that Dan Kelly was an instrumental part in the Trump campaign's plot to overturn election results in the statewide 2020 presidential election.
Kelly has been paid $120,000 for services he's provided to the Republican Party of Wisconsin (including a $40,000 payment AFTER he became a candidate for the Supreme Court). Those payments were for "election integrity" efforts (read: make it harder for Dem-leaning groups to vote in the state) and for his work on the fake electors plot.
But sure, Dan: the rule of law, you're all for it!
Put simply, Kelly's attacks on Protasiewicz reek of desperation. She's not a perfect candidate by any means, but compared to Kelly — who is chummy with January 6 Capitol breachers, likely wants to eradicate or limit same-sex marriage, and who has expressed beliefs that the state should be able to regulate your reproductive rights — she'd make a much better Supreme Court justice.
