the republic logo

Wisconsin Supreme Court chief justice sues over amendment that could cost her leadership post

bug
Share/Save/Bookmark

MADISON, Wisconsin — Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday to try and hold on to her leadership spot after voters approved a constitutional amendment that was likely to result in her demotion.

For the past 126 years the chief justice position has gone to the most senior member of the Supreme Court. Since 1996, that has been Abrahamson. But the amendment approved by voters on Tuesday would instead allow the seven justices to decide who should be chief.

The liberal Abrahamson was expected to be voted out by the four-justice conservative majority.

Abrahamson, 81, argued in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Madison that the change should not be applied until after her current term ends in four years or if she leaves before then.

To have the selection process change immediately would shorten the 10-year term of office to which Abrahamson was elected as chief justice, she argued, and would therefore violate her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection rights.

She also is asking for a temporary restraining order to block the other six justices on the court from taking any action to remove her as chief justice.

The chief justice selection amendment doesn't take effect until after the election's results are certified by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Board. That is expected to happen at the board's April 29 meeting.

Abrahamson did not return messages for comment on Tuesday or Wednesday. She is both the longest currently serving chief justice and state Supreme Court member in the country.

A spokeswoman for the Wisconsin Department of Justice, which would defend the state, said attorneys were reviewing the lawsuit.

Abrahamson's move to hold onto her position angered those who supported the amendment.

"She should accept the will of the people," said Sen. Tom Tiffany, R-Hazelhurst, one of the amendment's chief sponsors. "She's an elected justice of the Supreme Court. She was not elected as the chief justice of the Supreme Court."

Brandon Scholz, treasurer for a group that backed the selection change called Vote Yes for Democracy, said he was surprised by the lawsuit, calling it "self-serving." Scholz is also the former campaign manager for Justice Pat Roggensack, who has often clashed with Abrahamson and who supported the amendment.

Earlier Wednesday, before Abrahamson filed the lawsuit, Roggensack told The Associated Press that she hoped to meet "quite soon" to discuss how to proceed following the amendment's adoption.

Roggensack said her priority was making the court, which has been in the spotlight for high-profile disputes among the justices in recent years, function better. Roggensack is part of the court's four-justice conservative majority.

"We have some repair to do, frankly, with the image of the court and I want to work very hard to get that done," said Roggensack, a member of the court since 2003.

The measure was placed on the ballot by the Republican-controlled Legislature, and opponents said it was a clear attempt to remove Abrahamson, a member of the court since 1976.

Under the new amendment, the justices have to decide every two years who they want to serve as chief justice. There are no specifics about how that is to be done or when the first decision has to be made.

The chief serves as lead administrator for the state court system, with power to assign judges and justices for cases below the Supreme Court level, designate and assign reserve judges and schedule oral arguments before the high court, among other duties.

Justices are paid $147,403 a year while the chief justice earns $155,403.

Supporters of the change, including the state chamber of commerce, which spent at least $600,000 to get it adopted, argued it's undemocratic to have the position go automatically to the justice with the most experience.

Justice at Stake, a national judicial watchdog group based in Washington, issued a statement following adoption of the amendment saying a "siege of special interest money" and "big money hardball politics" led to its adoption.

While 22 other states use some sort of similar selection process, changing from one system to another and replacing the current chief justice is unprecedented, said Bill Raftery, an analyst with National Center for State Courts based in Williamsburg, Virginia.

"There's nothing comparable," he said. "This has just not happened before. ... It's exceptional and unique."

Also on Tuesday, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley won re-election to a second term. She and Abrahamson are generally considered the two most liberal justices on the court.


Associated Press writer Todd Richmond contributed.


Follow Scott Bauer on Twitter at https://twitter.com/sbauerAP

Think your friends should see this? Share it with them!

Story copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Feedback, Corrections and Other Requests: AP welcomes feedback and comments from readers. Send an email to info@ap.org and it will be forwarded to the appropriate editor or reporter.


All content copyright ©2015 The Republic, a division of Home News Enterprises unless otherwise noted.
All rights reserved. Privacy policy.