Bellweather Wisconsin Supreme Court election on Tuesday

[Boyo Jim]

David Prosser is running for re-election to the WI Supreme court (it is a ten-year term). The election is next Tuesday, April 5.

He is a conservative Republican, and certainly didn't hide it while he was in the state legislature. Which isn't a problem. But, a press release released by his campaign last December is. This was after Scott Walker's election as governor but before the controversy about disempowering union bargaining rights for public employees. Among other things it said, "Our campaign efforts will include building an organization that will return Justice Prosser to the bench, protecting the conservative judicial majority and acting as a common sense compliment to both the new administration and legislature." Prosser claims his campaign released it without his knowledge or review, though not until "weeks later". Here is a Politifacts article about the issue. Prosser has disavowed the press release, but not the campaign manager who issued it, and who later had several email exchanges with the opposition campaign where he said much the same thing.

So the anti-Prosser forces are trying, and largely succeeding, I think, to stick Prosser with the label "Prosser Equals Walker".

His opponents have one more ugly thing they are sticking to him -- child abuse enabler. The facts are not really contested. 30 years ago when he was a county prosecutor, the mother of two Catholic schoolboys approached him with an accusation that a priest was molesting her children. Prosser did not lay any charges or even ask the police to investigate. He spoke privately with the bishop of the diocese, and the priest was transferred away. Almost forgot, the priest continued molesting kids for another 20 or so years. What is at issue is why Prosser did, or failed to do, what would seem to be his obvious duty. He claims there wasn't enough evidence, and that testifying would be bad for the kids. Of course, with no police investigation...

[Really Not All That Bright]

I don't get it. What's wrong with the release? That it paints him as a supporter of the governor? I don't see why that's an issue for a judiciary which is itself elected.

[jsgoddess]

I took it that the release was bad news for Prosser because it ties him pretty closely with Walker and Walker may not be someone he really wants to be tied closely to right now for his own political future.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

I took it that the release was bad news for Prosser because it ties him pretty closely with Walker and Walker may not be someone he really wants to be tied closely to right now for his own political future.

It's a fair cop, isn't it? If he wants to be elected due to the fact that he will support Walker, then he says so, and the voters decide.

That's primarily why I didn't respond to the OP: especially after recent events in Wisconsin, it's completely a bellwether vote. It's extremely clear to the voters as to the direction their vote will mean, and it's entirely up to them.

[BigT]

It's pretty obvious that he authorized that stuff, but is only saying he didn't to appeal to those who think a judge should not be political. That way he gets to have it both ways, like a politician who says they won't mudsling at their opponent, pretending to object when other people in his party do it for him.

[Boyo Jim]

Court elections in Wisconsin are non-partisan by law. Candidates are not supposed to identify with any political party. There is also an issue of judging cases based on ideology. Cases are supposed to be decided strictly on their legal merits. It is very bad form, to say the least, to suggest that you will be a judicial "complement" to a conservative legislature.

[jayjay]

Prosser is also losing ground because of the recent publicization of his verbal attacks on the state Chief Justice and another Justice on the WISC, calling the Chief Justice a "total bitch" and swearing to "destroy" her, and then claiming that the CJ and this other Justice "made" him do that.

Not really judicial temper, is it?

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by jayjay

Prosser is also losing ground because of the recent publicization of his verbal attacks on the state Chief Justice and another Justice on the WISC, calling the Chief Justice a "total bitch" and swearing to "destroy" her, and then claiming that the CJ and this other Justice "made" him do that.

Not really judicial temper, is it?

He also says the liberal members of the court are ganging up on him. He also defended his "total bitch" comment by saying it "was entirely warranted".

[Bricker]

From the OP's link:

The fact that Prosser disavowed one statement, about his being a "complement" to Walker and other GOP leaders, indicates he had concern about signaling how he might rule on cases.

But Kloppenburg didn’t accuse Prosser of giving signals. She said he had "prejudged matters that are likely to come before the court." Yet she could provide no examples.

We rate Kloppenburg’s claim Barely True.

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

His opponents have one more ugly thing they are sticking to him -- child abuse enabler. The facts are not really contested. 30 years ago when he was a county prosecutor, the mother of two Catholic schoolboys approached him with an accusation that a priest was molesting her children. Prosser did not lay any charges or even ask the police to investigate. He spoke privately with the bishop of the diocese, and the priest was transferred away. Almost forgot, the priest continued molesting kids for another 20 or so years. What is at issue is why Prosser did, or failed to do, what would seem to be his obvious duty. He claims there wasn't enough evidence, and that testifying would be bad for the kids. Of course, with no police investigation...

One of the victims seems to be claiming that this is bullshit.

[Boyo Jim]

But Kloppenburg didn’t accuse Prosser of giving signals. She said he had "prejudged matters that are likely to come before the court." Yet she could provide no examples.

I find this quote itself misleading. Politifacts asked a campaign spokeswoman, who could provide no specific examples. Kloppenburg herself, however, did provide some specifics, which you can assess in this candidate interview. Whether those accusations are correct is a separate question, of course.

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by pkbites

One of the victims seems to be claiming that this is bullshit.

Well, that seems like a pretty easy factual thing to prove for people who want to investigate it, doesn't it? Of course, the video is a little vague since it says "Brought to justice" but I would think someone would be able to find out if the priest were prosecuted and convicted, wouldn't they?

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by pkbites

One of the victims seems to be claiming that this is bullshit.

Yes, that is making the rounds. The priest was indeed convicted of the abuse of the two Wisconsin kids -- some 25 years later. It happened in 1978, the guy was finally convicted in 2003. By that time Prosser was already on the WI Supreme court, so the only only official role he could have had was to affirm a conviction.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by pkbites

One of the victims seems to be claiming that this is bullshit.

Just found another article about this particular victim. In 2008, he was quoted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal as saying:

One of Feeney's victims, Troy Merryfield, on Monday called on Prosser to step aside when cases involving priest sexual misconduct come before the high court.

"He knows damn well what happened and what was said," said Merryfield, now 43. "He dropped the ball, and he should recuse himself."

Why this major change two years later, I can't explain.

[jsgoddess]

And apparently the anti-Prosser ad didn't name names and Troy Merryfield doesn't live in Wisconsin. It's a bit odd. I probably would have asked to have the ad pulled were I running against Prosser.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

And apparently the anti-Prosser ad didn't name names and Troy Merryfield doesn't live in Wisconsin. It's a bit odd. I probably would have asked to have the ad pulled were I running against Prosser.

It's pretty standard not to publicly name the victims in sex abuse cases.

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

It's pretty standard not to publicly name the victims in sex abuse cases.

I know. It's odd that someone is running in from Virginia claiming to have been victimized by an ad that didn't mention him by name.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

I know. It's odd that someone is running in from Virginia claiming to have been victimized by an ad that didn't mention him by name.

I'm curious why you would ask for the ad to be pulled. I've seen most of the ads on both sides of this campaign, and IMO it is by far the most effective. When I first heard it, I was pretty shocked, and didn't quite believe it. So I went and did some research, and IMO it's a very solid and correct accusation.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

I find this quote itself misleading. Politifacts asked a campaign spokeswoman, who could provide no specific examples. Kloppenburg herself, however, did provide some specifics, which you can assess in this candidate interview. Whether those accusations are correct is a separate question, of course.

That link goes to an interview with the Wisconsin Timber Rattlers' president.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Bricker

That link goes to an interview with the Wisconsin Timber Rattlers' president.

Sorry. I tested it and it worked for me, but perhaps because I had previously selected the correct video choice below the "monitor" screen. There is a slider bar that scrolls through a bunch of interview thumbnails. The relevant one is labeled "Newsmakers: Supreme Court Candidate". It's pretty long, but the bias accusation is very early.

[Northern Piper]

so? what happened, Wisconinites?

[Lobohan]

Not a Cheese-head, but according to Dave Weigel:
Now 69% in, Kloppenburg up by 550 of 1.06 million votes

[waterj2]

Talking Points Memo currently has it at 84% of precincts reporting, with Kloppenberg up by about 35,000. It's still 51%–49% overall.

[waterj2]

And now we're at 92% of precincts reporting and Prosser's up by 600-something votes. Out of 1.35 or so million. So it's pretty close, certainly. I don't know what precincts are still outstanding.

[Orr, G.]

I've been following at http://host.madison.com/news/local/g...ics/elections/

It's been 51-49, then 49-51, and now it's at 50-50 with Kloppenburg up by a little over 1,500 with 3,334 of 3,630 precincts in.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this finally plays out.

[jayjay]

It's been sooo close all night. I don't think the spread's been larger than about 3% at any point since polls closed. This is automatic recount territory, unless Prosser has an awful lot of votes in his pocket that he's not showing yet.

[elucidator]

If Prosser wins, the right wins. If Prosser loses, they will demand a recount (legit) and send in a battalion of lawyers to ensure that it takes as long as humanly possible, because every minute it ain't decided, he's still the incumbent.

[Orr, G.]

Weird. That site just now reverted back to their 11:00 report (Kloppenburg up by about 8k with 2,957 precincts reporting). Dunno what that's about.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by elucidator

If Prosser wins, the right wins. If Prosser loses, they will demand a recount (legit) and send in a battalion of lawyers to ensure that it takes as long as humanly possible, because every minute it ain't decided, he's still the incumbent.

Wisconsin's auto recount triggers at 0.5%, and we're well within that margin right now, with precious few precincts still out. It's going to auto recount.

[Captain Amazing]

And these results don't include the absentee ballots, I believe. So, I really don't think we're going to know this for a while

[elucidator]

Let's cheer for one thing: turnout is huge. People are voting. For the progressive agenda, the number one enemy isn't the Republican Party, its the Apathy Party.

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by elucidator

For the progressive agenda, the number one enemy isn't the Republican Party, its the Apathy Party.

I don't agree. I think the true enemy of the progressives are free citizens that think for themselves and realize the insanity of your agenda. And I believe progressives are actually aware of this truth.

[John D'Adamo]

Originally Posted by pkbites

I don't agree. I think the true enemy of the progressives are free citizens that think for themselves and realize the insanity of your agenda. And I believe progressives are actually aware of this truth.

What exactly, pkbites, do you consider insane about allowing workers the right to ask for a fair wage and safe living conditions? Or the right of women to have health resources available to them? Progressives are merely asking for the preservation of what men and women have fought and died for for decades. I don't exactly see what is so insane about that. I think it's more insane that across the country, Republican governors and legislatures are using the power of the government to further the agenda of social conservatism, rather than employing the hands off government they were elected on. Hence the closeness of the Supreme Court election tonight- people have seen the Republicans unmasked now, and are mad as hell about it.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by pkbites

I don't agree. I think the true enemy of the progressives are free citizens that think for themselves and realize the insanity of your agenda. And I believe progressives are actually aware of this truth.

Yes, because believing that people are more important then property and wealth is so insane.

[Lady of the Lake]

I've been following this pretty closely (being a Minnesotan I've always felt a kinship to you cheeseheads), and it looks like at the moment Kloppenburg is currently slightly winning, with only two counties left?

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Lady of the Lake

I've been following this pretty closely (being a Minnesotan I've always felt a kinship to you cheeseheads), and it looks like at the moment Kloppenburg is currently slightly winning, with only two counties left?

That would be two precincts left.

[Jophiel]

With all precincts reporting (3630/3630), the AP is showing a 204 vote win for Koppenburg.

[ShibbOleth]

I assume that very small difference will trigger an automatic recount.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by ShibbOleth

I assume that very small difference will trigger an automatic recount.

I thought it would, too, but it's been pointed out on Daily Kos by multiple cheeseheads that Wisconsin doesn't have an automatic recount law. At this margin, a requested recount will be paid for publicly, though. I certainly expect Prosser to request a recount, and I can't begrudge him that considering that the difference in votes is in the low triple-digits.

[Boyo Jim]

Walker's claiming this vote shouldn't be seen as a referendum on his agenda. In the February primary (there was only one because the race is officially non-partisan) Prosser got more than double the votes Kloppenburg did. If ever there was a referendum without it being an official referendum, this was it.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Walker's claiming this vote shouldn't be seen as a referendum on his agenda. In the February primary (there was only one because the race is officially non-partisan) Prosser got more than double the votes Kloppenburg did. If ever there was a referendum without it being an official referendum, this was it.

Yes, 20% of Wisconsin just suddenly decided they liked Kloppenberg better. A miracle, considering that right before all of the FitzWalker shenanigans started, no one knew who the hell she was.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Walker's claiming this vote shouldn't be seen as a referendum on his agenda. In the February primary (there was only one because the race is officially non-partisan) Prosser got more than double the votes Kloppenburg did. If ever there was a referendum without it being an official referendum, this was it.

How many candidates were in the primary?

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

How many candidates were in the primary?

Four. The results were: 55%, 25%, 11%, 9%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_P...ctoral_History

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

How many candidates were in the primary?

There were four (Supreme Court is the first post-introduction section). Prosser received 54.7%, Kloppenburg 25.2%. The other two candidates got 20% between them. Since Wisconsin's Supreme Court elections are supposed to be non-partisan, the two candidates with the most votes go to the actual election.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Walker's claiming this vote shouldn't be seen as a referendum on his agenda. In the February primary (there was only one because the race is officially non-partisan) Prosser got more than double the votes Kloppenburg did. If ever there was a referendum without it being an official referendum, this was it.

Democrats also won in many other races yesterday, including winning Walkers old job.

Possibly even more scary for the Wisconsin GOP is that Kloppenburg won big in many of the districts that Republican legislators won in last Fall's election by only very small numbers. Indicating that Democrats will have a good chance at taking those seats back in the 2012 election, if the mood is similar and they can get their voters to turn out (that they managed to do so in a Special Election is a good sign for them). Or maybe even sooner than 2012, if they get enough signatures on Recall petitions. (I'd think this election result would really energize Democratic petition gatherers.)

[Boyo Jim]

It may be that Walker's anti-union bill won't even get to the court. I haven't heard any claims that the law, on its face, is unconstitutional -- though odds are someone will figure an angle to challenge it.

What will almost certainly end up at the WI Supreme Court is whether the vote to pass it violated WI open meeting laws. And even it it is found to have violated that law, the legislature can vote again on the same law, word for word, and pass it again. They still have the numbers to do so.

But if that happens, the Republicans will have a much starker image of the personal cost of their vote, in the currency of electoral politics.

I think it will be an interesting morality play we see over the next months if this this scenario plays out. If they really believe their earlier rhetoric -- this is crucial for the well being of the state -- they will repeat their vote, pass the bill and face recall elections. If they are electoral whores, they will change their votes and the 2nd attempt to pass the bill will fail.

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Walker's claiming this vote shouldn't be seen as a referendum on his agenda. In the February primary (there was only one because the race is officially non-partisan) Prosser got more than double the votes Kloppenburg did. If ever there was a referendum without it being an official referendum, this was it.

This is not unexpected (at least by me). It was pointed out MANY times that the Tea Party had unreasonable expectations. "No tax increase. (Oh, and no cuts to programs that are important to me)."

The problem being that the parenthetical meant different things to different people.

Rick Scott here in Florida is also suffering from teabagger's remorse...

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

What will almost certainly end up at the WI Supreme Court is whether the vote to pass it violated WI open meeting laws. And even it it is found to have violated that law, the legislature can vote again on the same law, word for word, and pass it again. They still have the numbers to do so.

They have enough Republicans. Whether they have enough Republicans who are willing to risk the political fallout now that Walker's strategery isn't turning out as they hoped remains to be seen.

[gonzomax]

Prosser lost but it is close enough for a recount.
The internets assays 19 counties that went Repub last time flipped Dem. Walkers old spot was lost to a Dem.
That is not a resounding boost for Walkers policies.

[Chronos]

Quoth pkbites:

I don't agree. I think the true enemy of the progressives are free citizens that think for themselves and realize the insanity of your agenda. And I believe progressives are actually aware of this truth.

Thus explaining why one significant group of anti-progressives refer to themselves as "dittoheads". Oh, no, wait, it doesn't.

The whole reason why progressives struggle as much as we do is that we are the free-thinkers, which unfortunately makes us really hard to organize.