Wisconsin-Report

114
Prosser Said He Would Be A “Common-Sense Complement” To Walker’s Administration. According to PolitiFact,
“‘Now Prosser has promised to act as a complement to Walker.’ The ad cites a news release issued by Prosser’s campaign on
Dec. 8, 2010, that called Prosser a ‘common-sense complement to both the new administration and Legislature.’ The
statement was attributed to Nemoir, but at PolitiFact we attribute a statement from a spokesman as coming from the
candidate, who is responsible for it. The reference was to Walker, who had been elected governor in November 2010 but had
not yet taken office, and Republicans who would take control of the Senate and Assembly in January 2011.” [PolitiFact,
3/31/11]
Walker Said “I Won” When Asked For His Reaction To The Re-Election Of David Prosser. According to the
Chippewa Herald, “Reporters dutifully asked Gov. Scott Walker for his reaction after David Prosser was narrowly re-elected
to the State Supreme Court in the spring of 2011. ‘I won,’ Walker replied. Prosser’s victory assured a conservative majority on
the seven-member high court. Last month that majority changed state policy when it ruled that a change in the law requiring
voters to show a photo ID to vote in Wisconsin elections is constitutional.” [Chippewa Herald, 8/11/14]
Law Professors Said That Prosser Could Not Be Seen As Impartial
New York University Law Professor Stephen Gillers: Club For Growth’s Spending “Is Sufficient To Warrant Recusal
In A Case In Which The Club Has Publicly Expressed A Strong Interest, On The Ground That The Judge’s
Impartiality Might Reasonably Be Questioned.” According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Stephen Gillers, a New
York University law professor who specializes in legal ethics, said under Wisconsin’s rules Prosser should step aside. The
others may need to do so as well, depending on the particulars of their races and the help the Wisconsin Club for Growth
provided them, he said. The club’s level of spending in Prosser’s 2011 race ‘is sufficient to warrant recusal in a case in which
the club has publicly expressed a strong interest, on the ground that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’
Gillers wrote in an email to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. ‘It doesn’t mean the judge will be partial. The rule means to ensure
public confidence. Its focus is the need for the appearance of impartiality.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/28/14]
Indiana University Law Professor Charles Geyh: “A Reasonable Person Would Doubt (Prosser’s) Capacity To Be
Fair.” According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor with expertise on
judicial ethics, wrote in an email to the Journal Sentinel that he believed ‘a reasonable person would doubt (Prosser’s) capacity
to be fair’ because of the amount of money the club spent to help him and because his election was so recent.” [Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel, 4/28/14]
Prosser’s Election Determined “The Fate Of The State’s Collective-Bargaining Law”
Washington Times: Prosser’s Election Was “Likely To Determine The Fate Of The State’s Collective-Bargaining
Law.” According to the Washington Times, “At stake is the balance of the power on the court. With Justice Prosser on the
bench, conservatives enjoy a 4-3 advantage, but a Kloppenburg victory would swing the balance in favor of the liberal wing.
How the court goes is likely to determine the fate of the state’s collective-bargaining law. State District Court Judge Maryann
Sumi already has placed a hold on the law until a legal challenge can be decided, but the state's high court is expected to have
the final say.” [Washington Times, 4/4/11]
• In 2011, The State Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority Ruled That The Collective-Bargaining Law Was
Legal And Overturned A Lower Court Ruling That Found Republican Legislators Had Broken Procedural
Rules With It. According to The New York Times, “The Supreme Court’s ruling, issued at the close of the business
day, spared lawmakers in the Republican-dominated Capitol from having to do what some of them strongly hoped to
avoid: calling for a new vote on the polarizing collective bargaining measure, which had drawn tens of thousands of
protesters to Madison this year and led Democratic lawmakers to flee the city in an effort to block the bill. […] The
ruling was 4 to 3, split along what many viewed as the court’s predictable conservative-liberal line. The majority of the
justices concluded that a lower court was wrong when it found that the Legislature had forced through the cuts in
collective bargaining without giving sufficient notice — 24 hours — under the state’s open-meetings requirements.”
[New York Times, 6/14/11]
Conservative Justice Prosser Cast The Deciding Vote With The Court’s Conservative Majority. According to The New
York Times, “The ruling was 4 to 3, split along what many viewed as the court’s predictable conservative-liberal line. […]
Justice David T. Prosser, whose re-election bid was threatened this year because he was seen as a conservative who would cast