The Republican lawmakers now seeking liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s recusal from redistricting suits are unhappy with her “sweeping” win by more than 200,000 votes and “now seek to nullify the election and pick their judges,” Dem plaintiffs argue in a new filing.
The filing Tuesday from the Dem voters who filed one of the two suits now pending before the court argued Protasiewicz should remain on the case over the objections of GOP lawmakers.
The Republicans argued in a recusal motion that Protasiewicz can’t fairly hear the two suits considering the nearly $10 million she received from the state Dem Party during this spring’s campaign and her past comments that the current lines are “rigged” in favor of the GOP.
But the filing from the Dem voters and a separate one from Dem state senators named in one the suits counter Protasiewicz hasn’t crossed any boundaries laid out in state law on when a justice or judge should step off a case. They also argued Republicans are misreading a U.S. Supreme Court ruling they cited in their motion seeking to get Protasiewicz off the case.
If Protasiewicz granted the GOP motion, it “would be a violation of her oath of office and would render meaningless Wisconsin voters’ constitutional right to elect the justice of their choice,” the Dem voters argued.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court typically refers recusal motions to the justices targeted and leave it up to them on whether they can hear a case. Protasiewicz set a deadline of Tuesday for parties in the two redistricting suits to weigh in. Republicans want Protasiewicz off every aspect of the two cases, including the decision on whether to take original jurisdiction in the suits without first making them go through the lower courts. If she stepped off the case, it would leave the court split 3-3 between its liberal and conservative wings.
Both Dem motions argue Republicans are misapplying a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a West Virginia judge improperly heard a case involving a donor.
The state Dem Party contributed nearly $10 million to Protasiewicz as she won by almost 11 points in this spring’s election over former conservative Justice Daniel Kelly.
In the West Virginia case, the president and CEO of a coal company seeking to reverse a $50 million jury award contributed $3 million to the effort to elect a candidate to the West Virginia Supreme Court in anticipation he would hear the appeal. The Dem plaintiff’s filing noted the $3 million was 300 percent of what the candidate’s committee spent and $1 million more spent by the campaign committees of both contenders combined.
While the $10 million the state party contributed was significantly more than in the West Virginia race, the briefs argue it wasn’t as dominant a factor in the overall spending. One of the briefs noted WisPolitics tracked more than $56 million in spending by candidates and groups in the spring Supreme Court election.
They also noted the state Dem Party isn’t involved in the two redistricting suits and the petitioners in one case, all of whom support Dems, “are not stand-ins for the Democratic Party.” They also aren’t seeking new maps that would maximize the Dem Party’s advantage in elections.
“Although (Republican lawmakers), based on their past experience of partisan manipulation, see redistricting as only a zero-sum game of a gerrymander favoring one party or another, ungerrymandering the map favors voters, not parties,” the Dem plaintiffs argued.
The briefs also noted that the court has never held that campaign contributions alone are grounds to recuse from a case.
They also argued the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected past attempts to disqualify judges based on prior comments or opinions.
What’s more, they argued Protasiewicz’s view that the current lines are “rigged” is shared by many others. In particular, one of the briefs noted a series of federal cases have established that the maps were based on “extreme partisan gerrymanders” that favor Republicans.
“Thus, Justice Protasiewicz’s comments, far from prejudging the case, merely acknowledge widely held views,” the Dem plaintiffs argued.
See the filings here and here.
