On today’s BradCast: It was a huge night in Wisconsin on Tuesday, as a progressive candidate for the state Supreme Court trounced a so-called ‘conservative’ who was backed by another full court press by state and national GOP groups. [Audio link to show follows below.]
It was the first such victory for a progressive vying for an open seat on the state’s high court in almost 25 years. Or, as our guest today, author/journalist and Wisconsin’s own JOHN NICHOLS describes it: “The first statewide race that really pitted left against right in this kind of way, in the country, in 2018. And the progressives won. And they didn’t win by a little.”
In fact, the reported results find that progressive Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Rebecca Dallet crushed Sauk County Judge and GOP attorney Michael Screnock, “literally a point-man for much of [Gov. Scott] Walker’s agenda”, says Nichols, by 12 points. Walker also saw his ballot proposition that would have done away with the statewide office of Treasurer — allowing the executive office more control over billions in public education funds and tens of thousands of square miles of public lands — defeated by an even larger margin.
For his part, Walker, who faces re-election this November, took to Twitter to warn again of a “#BlueWave” coming this November, a continuation of the “WAKE UP CALL” panic he first unleashed after a long-held Republican seat in the State Senate was lost to a Democrat in a special election in January. Nichols observes: “One of the most disciplined political figures in the United States, a guy who really, by any measure, keeps his calm through some of the toughest political fights you’ve seen, appears to be losing it. He appears to be freaked out by election results he can’t control.”
“I must say it’s especially nice to be talking about something good happening in Wisconsin, rather than our many complex and sad stories,” adds Nichols, describing last night’s outcome as “the first genuinely good election night for Wisconsin progressives” in many years.
Nichols and I also discuss — and, yes, debate — the danger to democracy posed by partisan judicial elections like those in the Badger State and elsewhere across the country. And The Nation’s Washington Correspondent and longtime Associate Editor of Madison, Wisconsin’s Capital Times also rings in with his thoughts on whether U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) could actually be unseated this November and/or whether he might drop out of the race all together.
Also today: Progressives in Alaska appear to have defeated a so-called “bathroom bill” referendum in Anchorage that would have gutted the city’s anti-discrimination law for transgender people; GOP-backed legislation to replace 100% unverifiable touch-screen voting systems with HAND-MARKED paper ballots moves forward in Missouri’s state legislature, despite shameful resistance from Democrats; And Pennsylvania begins to move away from 100% unverifiable touch-screen voting, but leaves the door wide open for unverifiable computer-marked paper ballots, using weasel words in its announcement for vendor bids, seeking systems that feature a “voter-verifiable paper ballot or voter-verifiable paper record of votes cast by the voter” (as opposed to systems featuring hand-marked voter-verifIED paper ballots.)
Finally, we pause to honor the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was assassinated 50 years ago today — while the fight for “what kind of nation we are and what direction we want to move in,” as Bobby Kennedy asked on the night of King’s death, still continues…
Hi Brad!
I don’t see the logic behind your claim that an anti-gun judge should have to recuse herself from cases involving the NRA.
That would imply that ANYBODY could MAKE a judge recuse herself from any future case involving them simply by buying a political ad.
Here is the difference: (assume you are a judge)
If YOU go on the record that YOU LIKE ME, then that’s your choice and you have to recuse yourself from cases involving me.
But, conversely, if I go on the record that I HATE YOU, then that’s my choice and my problem and it obligates you to nothing.
I agree with Nemo. Recusal is appropriate when a judge has a financial tie to a party, which can come via receipt of campaign contributions. But the fact that a party supported your opponent is irrelevant.
Nemo @ 1:
First, this is a question because Dalett, in this case, said she’d recuse from cases involving those who supported her. If that’s appropriate, then it seems equally appropriate to recuse from cases involving those who attacked her. Because the recusals are supposed to be in order to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.
(For the record, this has nothing to do with her being “anti-gun”, if in fact she is, as you suggested. But rather a conflict with the donor or anti-donor. Same argument could be made regarding the Kochs or the WI Manufacturing and Commerce, etc.)
You are correct, that my argument suggests all I’d need to do is buy an ad against a judge to force them to recuse. But, similarly, I could buy an ad FOR the judge to force a recusal as well, under Dalett’s current vow. The spending in question is not money that was given to (and accepted by) her. Rather, it was money that these outside groups spent on her behalf, purchasing ads, etc.
Your point (and Ernie’s — and John’s during the show) are all well taken, in general. But your points — and, I believe, my own — all underscore my larger point that: Judges shouldn’t have to run in competitive, partisan elections!