Democrats in Wisconsin celebrated the election last spring of a liberal judge to the State Supreme Court. Her election was decisive—she won by 11 points. Her election shifted the balance on the court to 4-3 favoring liberals. Justice Janet Protasiewicz made clear as she campaigned that she would support abortion rights and oppose partisan gerrymandering. Republicans claim that her campaign statements demonstrate she is prejudiced, which is grounds for impeachment. The legislature is overwhelmingly Republican, which is evidence of partisan gerrymandering of legislative districts in a state with a Democratic governor.
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled Legislature is talking about impeaching a newly elected liberal state Supreme Court justice even before she has heard a case.
The unprecedented attempt to impeach and remove Justice Janet Protasiewicz from office comes as the court is being asked to throw out legislative electoral maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011 that cemented the party’s majorities, which now stand at 65-34 in the Assembly and a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate.
Here is a closer look at where things stand:
Protasiewicz won election in April to a 10-year term on the Wisconsin Supreme Court beginning Aug. 1. Her 11-point victory gave liberals a 4-3 majority, ending a 15-year run with conservatives in control.
During her first week in office, two lawsuits were filed by Democratic-friendly groups and law firms seeking to overturn Republican-drawn legislative maps.
WHY IS THERE TALK OF IMPEACHMENT?
Republican lawmakers who have talked about the possibility, most notably Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, allege Protasiewicz has prejudged redistricting cases pending before the Supreme Court because of comments she made during her campaign. They also argue her acceptance of nearly $10 million from the Wisconsin Democratic Party disqualifies her.
The state Democratic Party is not part of either redistricting lawsuit, but supports the efforts.
The court has yet to say whether it will hear the redistricting challenges. Protasiewicz also has yet to say whether she will step aside in the cases, including the decision on whether to hear them.
If she does step aside, the court would be divided 3-3 between liberal and conservative justices. However, conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn has sided with liberals on major cases in the past, angering Republicans.
WHAT EXACTLY DID PROTASIEWICZ SAY?
Protasiewicz frequently spoke about redistricting during the campaign, calling the current Republican-friendly maps “unfair” and “rigged.”
“Let’s be clear here,” she said at a January forum. “The maps are rigged here, bottom line.”
“They do not reflect people in this state,” Protasiewicz said at the same forum. “I don’t think you could sell any reasonable person that the maps are fair. I can’t tell you what I would do on a particular case, but I can tell you my values, and the maps are wrong.”
She never promised to rule one way or another.
WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY ABOUT RECUSAL AND IMPEACHMENT?
On recusal, the U.S. Constitution’s due process clause says a judge must recuse if they have a financial interest in the case, or if there is a strong possibility of bias.
There are also state rules laying out when a judge must step aside from a case. Those generally include any time their impartiality on a case can be called into question, such as having a personal bias toward one of those suing, having a financial interest or making statements as a candidate that “commits, or appears to commit” the judge to ruling one way or another.
On impeachment, the Wisconsin Constitution limits the reasons to impeach a sitting officeholder to corrupt conduct in office or the commission or a crime or misdemeanor.
HAS A WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT JUSTICE EVER BEEN IMPEACHED?
The Wisconsin Legislature has voted only once to impeach a state judge who was alleged to have accepted bribes and heard cases in which he had financial interests. It happened in 1853, just five years after statehood, and the state Senate did not convict.
HOW WOULD SHE BE IMPEACHED?
It takes a majority vote in the Assembly to impeach and a two-thirds majority, or 22 votes, in the Senate to convict. Republicans have enough votes in both chambers to impeach and convict Protasiewicz.
If the Assembly impeached her, Protasiewicz would be barred from any duties as a justice until the Senate acted. That could effectively stop her from voting on redistricting without removing her from office and creating a vacancy that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers would fill.
Vos, the Assembly speaker, has said he is still researching impeachment and has not committed to moving ahead.
The day after Protasiewicz was elected, Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu seemed to cast doubt on the Senate proceeding with impeachment.
“To impeach someone, they would need to do something very serious,” LeMahieu told WISN-TV. “We are not looking to start the impeachment process as a regular occurring event in Wisconsin.”
WHEN COULD THIS GET CLEARED UP?
The court is under no deadline to decide whether it will hear the redistricting challenges. Likewise, Protasiewicz doesn’t have a deadline for deciding whether she will recuse herself. Both decisions could come at any point.
If the court decides to hear the challenges, it would then set a timeline for arguments. It is unclear when, if Protasiewicz remains on the case, the Legislature might proceed with impeachment proceedings.
Why would the Republicans move to impeach the Justice? Power. They have successfully gerrymandered their state and don’t want to lose their super-majorities in both houses, where they can veto anything that Democratic Governor Tony Evers proposes.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY about
WHO is in charge?
Does the LAW say your understanding
of the wording shall determine the
meaning and application of said
wording?
Does the LAW say a SUPREME
court shall yield to your interpretations
of their functions?
LikeLike
This is confusing. A judge who is very open about her political stance concerning fairness in elections is elected by a significant majority of the voters. The possibility exists for a Republican super-majority in the legislature to remove this judge for what amounts to voicing an opinion. How on earth does a supermajority exist in a state that gives a 56-44 to someone like this judge? Boy am I confused. I think it might be because I am just an old boy from the farm that doesn’t get the complexities of modern politics.
I think I might understand why I am confused. You see, being a longtime Tennessean, I am familiar with Lamar Alexander, who retired just after the Trump impeachment. He did not vote to remove Trump, suggesting that it was wrong to call Ukrainian president Zelensky and threaten him in order to gain a political advantage in the 2020 election, that behavior did not rise to the level required to remove aw president from office. Since I know Lamar is a moderate, I took him at his word, and I reasoned that the Republican Party was all moderate like Lamar. His post electoral status has continued his silence over the behavior of his party, so I figure all the stuff the Republicans are doing is OK. This is what has me confused. Is Lamar a reasonable voice in American Politics? Is it OK for 40% of the electorate to rule 60%? If Lamar says that is fine, I feel like I ought to follow that idea since he has always been so reasonable.
So you see why I am so confused.
OK. I am really not confused. Alexander, like so many other modern Republicans, is willing to benefit from the movement of the the GOP from the moderation of the Eisenhower years to the radicalism of the post-tea party era of GOP. If Alexander and other GOP moderates really deserved the title, they would speak out, especially when they do not stand to lose their seat. But they remain silent. They could have called out the Tea Party radicals in the Obama years, preventing us from getting Trump in 2016. They are all at fault for the fractures in American Democracy.
Twenty years ago, a conservative colleague of mine was crowing about how George W. Bush was using his power, barely achieved in the contested 2000 election, to push the conservative agenda. I warned him that radical governance would stir the opponents to action and discredit many of his ideas. I am beginning to feel vindicated.
LikeLike
The scheme explained
https://purpleusa.substack.com/p/the-banana-republic-of-wisconsinia
LikeLike
Great article, Lisa. This further illustrates that Trump isn’t the only person hellbent on punishing enemies. It is the Republican Party’s new focus away from actual governance and toward changing rules so they can remain in power at all costs. They have ceased to serve the American people, and they are absolutely unabashed about it.
LikeLike
Roy, thank you for your comments about Lamar Alexander. I spent about 18 months working for him
In the Department of Education. He is a moderate Republican with centrist views. I admired him greatly. In the Trump era, he never stood up against Trump’s actions, and I was bitterly disappointed. Even now, as a retired Senator, he is silent.
LikeLike
How do you spell hypocrisy?
From Popular Information this morning:
“Republicans and conservative members of the court used to have a much different view on recusal. In 2007, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC), the state’s largest business lobbying group, spent an “estimated $2.2 million” to help elect (now-Chief) Justice Annette Ziegler. That year, Ziegler sat alongside her colleagues on “a high-profile sales tax case” involving the WMC and refused to step down despite facing criticism. The court ruled 4-3 “in favor of WMC’s position,” and Ziegler wrote the majority decision. No Republicans called for Ziegler’s impeachment.
“Ziegler did this again in 2009: she refused to recuse herself from a case with broad implications for WMC. This time, she was joined by former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, who declined to step down from the case despite receiving $1.8 million from WMC.
“That same year, WMC proposed a rule to ensure the members of the court it helped elect could still hear its cases. WMC proposed that judges would “not be required to step aside from cases involving groups or individuals no matter how much they spent to help their campaigns.” The rule was narrowly approved by a vote of 4-3 of the court. Ziegler and Gableman voted in favor.
“In 2017, a group of 54 retired Wisconsin judges petitioned the court to “adopt a rule requiring judges and justices to recuse from matters involving individuals and entities who financially supported their campaigns.” But the state’s conservative majority, which included Ziegler and another justice, Rebecca Bradley, shot the proposal down. Bradley criticized the petition for “its disregard for the Wisconsin Constitution and the United States Constitution, particularly the First Amendment.”
“And yet, on August 15, Bradley publicly criticized Protasiewicz for failing to recuse herself from the gerrymandering case because she accepted money from the Democratic Party:
“Despite receiving nearly $10 million from the Democrat Party of Wisconsin and declaring the maps “rigged,” Protasiewicz has not recused herself from the case. These four justices will adopt new maps to shift power away from Republicans and bestow an electoral advantage for Democrat candidates, fulfilling one of Protasiewicz’s many promises to the principal funder of her campaign.
“Bradley did not mention that she received $70,000 from the Wisconsin Republican Party — a group that benefits from the existing maps — in support of her campaign. Another conservative justice, Brian Hagedorn, received $150,000. Vos and other Republicans are not demanding Bradley and Hagedorn recuse themselves from the gerrymandering case. And they are not threatening to impeach the pair if they fail to recuse.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/popularinformation/p/wisconsin-republicans-nuclear-option?r=ottd6&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
LikeLike
The fascist-loving MAGA branch of the Republican Party, that currently controls the majority of votes cast during Republican primaries, a MAGA that’s still controlled by Traitor Trump, is working overtime in DC and in swing states weaponizing the impeachment process as… correct me if I’m wrong, as it has never been used before.
LikeLike
LLoyd with your fragile brainwashed mind, please explain how he is a traitor. No wars, lowest job unemployment, lowest oil and gas, middle east destroyed, we got back prisoners for nothing, companies came back here and left china mexico. Trace deals with mexico and canada were great. Such a traitor, the real traitor is biden, obama, clintons, dems, rinos, deep state, pelosi etc. You are as blind as stevie wonder, loss soul. Dumb and dumber lloyd
LikeLike
Lloyd can answer well for himself.
I hardly know where to begin. Trump tried to engineer a coup because he couldn’t admit that the lost. His attemp to overthrow the election and the Constitution was traitorous. That, plus his attempts to weaken NATO while kissing up to Russia and North Korea were either stupid or traitorous.
Someday you will understand that Trump is and was a womanizer and playboy whose greatest interest is greed.
LikeLike
Trump might be a womanizer back then, who wasnt? Biden took inappropriate showers with his own daughter A coup you mean people trying to have the state legislation look at the stolen election? When Trump won all dems said he did not win and he was not the real president, russian spy. FBI never came knocking down their doors.
Wow if Obama did what he did in north Korea and russia you would want nobel peace prize not the BS one drone striker Obama got.
Trump had a great life did not need to run and get all this heat. one day you will realize all the people you thought were good were evil, might be wjen you are gone from the earth,.
LikeLike
Storm, as in Stormtrooper? This is really creepy.
LikeLike
This same troll keeps coming back like some sort of dermatological problem. These days, he does so under various names, LOL, but the distinctive grammar and illogic make it certain that it’s the same person.
But that’s OK. I find him (I suspect it’s a him) amusing. I do wish that he would get some treatment for these delusions, though, poor thing.
LikeLike
Bob, this is clearly a paid troll who obviously appears on social media posts that are scoured for buzzwords. The main goal is to find weak-minded people to lay doubt in their minds about reality. Don’t engage.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone pays this guy.
LikeLike
Not even the Kremlin? Perhaps it’s this or defenestration.
LikeLike
I won’t be on this earth many more years but I’ve lived long enough to know that Trump is a liar, a grifter, a narcissist, and a phony. “Long ago” he was a womanizer? Well, in the 1990s, he groped a woman named E. Jean Carroll in the dressing room of an elegant department store, and he now owes her $5 million. He defamed her after the trial and will be assessed another big number.
We won’t go into his long relationship with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, over 20 years or so as close buddies.
There was that famous Access Hollywood rape, where he boasted that he could grab any woman by the genitals, and when you are a star “they let you do it.”
Then there was the Playgirl of the Month —Karen McDougal? —who said they had an affair and she was paid off to keep quiet.
Most recently was his fling with porn star Stormy Daniels. Their picture was taken together. Melania was home with her newborn baby while Donnie was gamboling with Stormy.
Putin and the dictator of North Korea were his dearest friends.
What a guy!
LikeLike
Years ago, I visited a bar in Chicago that used to be owned and frequented by Al Capone and that has been kept looking as it did then. And it is what you would expect: it reflected the crude, buffoonish ignorance and lack taste of a thuggish mobster, with its red velour curtains and its white plastic Venus de Milos. Well, Trump has a mobster’s taste in both women and home decor. Tacky in the extreme.
But that is far, far from the worst of it. Years ago, Trump started an affair with Marla Maples while he was still married to Ivana, the mother of his children Don Jr., Eric, and Ivanka Trump. Caught in this, he said of the affair with Maples, in a televised interview with Barbara Walters, that he was rich and didn’t have to be with a woman whose body had been “destroyed” by giving birth to children.
I don’t know about you, but I find that the most piggish, sexist, cruel, disgusting, nasty thing I’ve ever heard come out of a person’s mouth. Imagine speaking that way in a televised interview about the mother of your children! Imagine showing her such dishonor BECAUSE she had carried your children.
Trump is slime. He is the lowest of the low.
LikeLike
Come to think of it, the Venus de Milos are probably made of plaster. Were such large items made of Bakelite at the time?
LikeLike