Wisconsin Watch took a unique approach to the race for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. They asked both the Chris Taylor campaign and the Maria Lazar campaign to pselecta case that showcases their strengths and their opponent's weaknesses.
Interestingly, they both chose the same case - a voting rights case on whether voters had to completely fill out their address, including city, state, and zip code. Taylor ruled with the voters, pointing out that the law did not sarequire themo include all of that information.
Each campaign explained why they chose this case:
A spokesperson for Taylor’s campaign said the case demonstrates how Taylor protected Democratic rights and “fairly” and “impartially” applies the law.
“This decision balanced protecting each Wisconsinite’s right to vote with establishing a fair, uniform procedure for our local clerks,” Taylor campaign spokesman Sam Roecker said. “As indicative of the strength of this decision, no party involved in the case appealed Judge Taylor’s decision.”
Lazar’s campaign said Taylor failed to consider the intent of the Legislature.
“Judge Taylor’s opinion, on the merits, indicates how far an activist judge who legislates from the bench will go to alter procedures for election integrity,” Lazar campaign spokesman Nathan Conrad said of the witness address case. “Every common sense citizen in Wisconsin knows that an address consists of a street name, number and municipality.”
The explanation from the Lazar campaign reminded me of something that shows Lazar is unfit to be on the bench, especially not the Supreme Court.
Seven years ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court heard a case in which the decision came down to intent versus how the law is written. The Court ruled that intent was irrelevant and the law had to be followed as written. That decision was written by Rebecca Bradley, whose seat is up for grabs in April:
"The county urges the court to interpret 'not covered by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement' to mean 'not represented by a union,'" Rebecca Bradley wrote for the majority. "Because we must apply the plain meaning of the ordinance's text rather than rewrite it to reflect what the county may have intended, we reject the county's request and affirm the Court of Appeals."
In summary, what the legislature might have intended is irrelevant. The thing that matters is how the law is written. Taylor was correct and followed the law. Lazar wanted to alter the meaning of the law to meet her agenda.
We don't need anyone more radical and fascist than even Bradley on the bench.
Posts
