Zac Schultz:
Looking back at the timeline of Supreme Court elections, it was now Justice Ziegler's race which a lot of people point to the first time there were multimillion dollars spent by third-party groups...

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley:
Yes.

Zac Schultz:
...to influence the election. And that means every member of the court now going forward has been elected in an era in which outside money and partisan politics played a huge part. Is that just a fundamental shift that we have to accept going forward? Is there anything that could draw that back in as you said? 'Cause you could have run and had that old legacy, but that doesn't seem to be existing now for future candidates.

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley:
In 2005, I went and met with the Democratic Party chair and the Republican Party chair. I didn't know them beforehand — had dinner or lunch with one and coffee with the other and I said, "Stay out of these races." I'm told that I did the same thing in 2015. I think, yes, there is a middle ground to be achieved, but there's also of course people looking at different ways that we can be selecting our justices and running campaigns looking for reform. Other states, of course, they vary on how judges and justices are selected. Some are appointed for a certain term, some are elected, but the kind of election is different than we have. It's called retention election. So, I think there are groups that, and maybe even members of the Legislature, who are looking at ways to change perhaps even the Constitution, to change the way we select justices, statutes that could be changed, different kinds of regulation then that could be employed that would bring us back from where we are today.

Zac Schultz:
You've served with all the members we're talking about. In terms of what they're like once they get on the court, do you see the influence of party politics and money from the bench?

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley:
I don't. I don't. I see all seven of us approaching cases, but how we're supposed to. We look at the facts, we look at the law. We may see the law differently. We may have different ideologies or life experiences, but we are unified in our intent to serve the people of the state and honor the rule of law.

Zac Schultz:
Do you think that frustrates some of the people who only view these elections through a partisan lens? They say, "Well, I was encouraged by my party to support this person, I donated time or money, and now they get on the bench and they're not acting like the politicians that I was told that they are."

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley:
That's why civics education is so important, because that kind of attitude of course demonstrates a lack of understanding of what the third branch of government, the judicial branch, is about, right? We are not to follow necessarily public opinion. That may be odd for some to hear, but the executive branch does that, the legislative branch does that, but the third branch of government, co-equal branch of government, is to be an independent judiciary following, our north star is the rule of law. That's our guiding light. And that's important for members of the public to understand that we need to reinvigorate civics education, in this state I think, and elsewhere.

Zac Schultz:
But even with that north star, who is elected to the bench matters and that does change the outcome of some of these decisions.

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley:
Absolutely, it does. I mean, I can tell you, Zac, I'm writing fewer dissents in the last two years, right, but the process remains the same. That is looking at the facts, getting briefs, having oral argument, discussing the facts and the law and ultimately writing opinions. That process remains the same.