Recusal Justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court have disagreed on when they should
recuse themselves from cases, especially in cases where the justices have campaigned on issues during their election or received campaign contributions from people or organizations involved in the case's legal proceedings. Controversies with current court members can be traced to a 2009
United States Supreme Court case
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held 5–4 that a campaign expenditure of over $3 million by a corporate litigant to influence the election of a judge in West Virginia to the court that would hear its case, although legal, was an "extreme fact" that created a "probability of bias", thus requiring the judge to be
recused from hearing the case. Wisconsin had adopted a limit of $1,000 for campaign contributions to judges, but it was unclear when mandatory recusal was required. The issue of recusal became a major controversy again after the 2023 judicial election, but with the ideological positions reversed. Conservatives justice Rebecca Bradley and chief justice Annette Ziegler abandoned their previous position, which favored narrow recusal rules, and instead urged a broad recusal standard after Wisconsin elected a liberal majority to the Court in 2023. Their demand was targeted at the newest justice,
Janet Protasiewicz, and was paired with a threat from the Republican Assembly speaker to begin an impeachment. At issue was the allegation that Protasiewicz had pre-judged pending
redistricting cases, because she had remarked during the campaign that Wisconsin's legislative maps were "rigged". Several complaints were also filed against Protasiewicz with the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, but the commission quickly dismissed those complaints.
COVID-19 pandemic The Wisconsin Supreme Court had two rulings early in the
COVID-19 pandemic. First, in April 2020, the Court ruled that
Governor Tony Evers could not delay the
state's 2020 primary elections, despite public fears of
COVID-19. In the following month, the Court struck down an order by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services to extend the Governor's stay-at-home order. The portion of the order that kept all K-12 schools closed for the remainder of the school year remained in effect. The deciding vote to strike down the Secretary-designate's order was by
Daniel Kelly, who had recently lost his bid for re-election to
Jill Karofsky.
Redistricting The Wisconsin Supreme Court plays a role in determining the election maps in Wisconsin. The Court first reviewed maps in the 1890s, when they struck down state legislative maps and set standards for equal representation and district boundaries. This standard remained until federal guidance superseded these standards in the 20th century. The Court later reviewed a case about maps in the 1950s and even drew maps themselves in 1964. After these actions, the federal
Voting Rights Act of 1965 and related United States Supreme Court cases deterred the Wisconsin Supreme Court from examining redistricting issues. The Wisconsin Supreme court was prompted to revisit election maps in 2018 after the United States Supreme Court case of
Gill v. Whitford reduced federal jurisdiction. In 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court took on redistricting again. At first, the Wisconsin Supreme Court allowed the Legislature's maps through the 2022 elections.. But after Jill Karofsky was elected to replace
Daniel Kelly, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against the Legislature in 2023 in
Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission. In February 2024, Governor Tony Evers signed new election maps into law, which were used for the
2024 Wisconsin elections. ==Elections==