Justice Ann Walsh Bradley Reflects on the Role of Money in Wisconsin’s Judiciary
After an impressive three decades on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley is set to retire this summer. As one of only four justices to serve such a lengthy term in the court’s 178-year history, her insights are invaluable. In a recent interview with FOX 11’s Mark Leland, she shared candid thoughts on the evolving landscape of judicial politics and the growing influence of money in court elections.
A Shift in Judicial Dynamics
When voters step into the ballot box to elect a state Supreme Court justice, they hope for candidates who are fair, impartial, and non-partisan. These principles guided Bradley’s campaign from the beginning:
“In 1995, were you characterized as a Republican or Democrat?” Leland inquired. “It seems to me back then you had support from both parties.”
Bradley affirmed, responding, “Oh, that’s completely correct. I had Republican First Lady Sue Ann Thompson and Democratic Governor Tony Earl co-chair my campaign.”
The High Price of Justice
Yet, money has drastically changed the political perception of the court. In recent years, judicial races in Wisconsin have set national records for campaign spending. This past April, a staggering $100 million was spent on the Supreme Court campaigns of Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel, with distinct party lines marking financial support. Democrats rallied behind Crawford, while Republicans backed Schimel (source).
Bradley pointed to the loss of the ideal of a neutral candidate, suggesting that the tide began to turn around 2007-2008, influenced by the influx of campaign finance:
“Some point to 2007, 2008, and that came together with money.”
Reflecting on her own experience, she recalled a brazen moment from 2005, where she directly appealed to both parties to refrain from influencing her candidacy. Remarkably, that year she ran unopposed for her second ten-year term, demonstrating that political donations don’t always dictate outcomes.
The Future of the Judiciary
Fast forward to the highly contested 2023 race between Janet Protasiewicz and Dan Kelly, and it’s clear that political influence has intensified. Leland asked Bradley if this political pressure still troubles her, to which she firmly replied:
“Yes, yes.”
When questioned about potential solutions, she proposed the need for reform. Over the years, ideas have circulated suggesting limits on monetary contributions, adjustments to judges’ term lengths, and even reconsidering direct elections entirely.
“I find it troubling that the only country that currently elects all their judges is Mexico— and that just started in 2024,” Bradley emphasized.
A Vision for a Better Court
While acknowledging the dilemmas posed by financial contributions, Bradley maintained an optimistic view for the court’s future. She insists that every justice aims to perform their duties ethically, but reshaping public perceptions of impartiality will be a substantial hurdle.
“My vision for this court is consistent with what it was when I got on the court. We were considered one of the top state courts in the nation,” she explained.
Bradley expressed her hope that the court would regain its prestige, ensuring high standards for the nearly 5.9 million residents of Wisconsin.
As she prepares to conclude her remarkable tenure this summer, with her successor set to be sworn in on August 1, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley leaves behind a legacy rich in experience and a clarion call for reform in the pursuit of justice and integrity.
Conclusion
Justice Bradley’s reflections serve as both a cautionary tale and an inspiring vision for the future. The intersection of money and politics in judicial elections continues to raise questions about fairness and equity, challenging states across the nation to reassess how justice should be administered. As she steps away from the bench, the conversation she’s ignited regarding the role of money in the judiciary is one that will resonate for years to come.
