Wisconsin

A Democratic legislator's resolution to remove Justice Michael Gableman from the court for alleged violation of state law and the code of judicial conduct has received little support, attracting only four co-sponsors.

Though they have been proponents of electing judges in the past, two justices are calling for moving to some form of merit selection for the state's supreme court. Justices Crooks and Bradley cited concerns about the surge in spending on supreme court races, as well as the lack of meaningful disclosure and recusal rules.

Justice Michael Gableman rejected requests that he recuse himself from three cases involving a law firm that defended him for free against an ethics violation charge. Gableman noted that justices should recuse  themselves only when they believe they cannot act impartially or when it might appear that they cannot do so.

A Democratic legislator circulated a resolution calling for the removal of supreme court justice Michael Gableman, for presiding over cases involving a law firm that provided him with free legal services. The constitution allows the legislature to remove judges by a two-thirds vote—a process known as a bill of address.

Questions were raised as to whether Justice Michael Gableman violated the state ethics code and the code of judicial conduct by accepting free legal services in defending himself against a judicial ethics violation charge arising from his 2008 campaign. In two cases, Gableman voted in favor of parties represented by the firm that provided free legal services to him.

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin declined to open its deliberations to the public. The proposal was made by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, who hoped it might restore civility to the process. The Court also tabled a proposal to bring in a workplace consultant to work with the justices on collegiality.