JOANNE KLOPPENBURG:

I’M THE ONLY CANDIDATE THAT’S BEEN AROUND TO ALL 72 COUNTIES AND I’M STRUCK BY PEOPLE’S SHARED CONCERNS AND HOPES FOR THE COURT. THEY WANT THE COURT TO BE A PLACE WHERE EVERY PERSON FEELS LIKE THEY HAVE A FAIR SHAKE. WHERE THE OUTCOME OF ANY CASE IS NOT A FOREGONE CONCLUSION, WHERE EVERY JUSTICE APPROACHES EVERY CASE WITH AN OPEN MIND. AND WHERE THEY’RE CONFIDENT THAT JUSTICE IS BEING DONE WITHOUT FEAR AND FAVOR. THAT’S WHY I’M RUNNING, BECAUSE I’M UNWILLING TO SURRENDER THE COURT TO THE PARTISAN POLITICS AND THE OUTSIDE INTERESTS THAT THREATEN TO UNDERMINE THE INDEPENDENCE AND INTEGRITY OF OUR COURT.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

IN FACT, YOU SAY OUR CURRENT COURT HAS BEEN INJECTED WITH PARTISAN POLITICS WHICH COMES, YOU SAY, WITH AGENDAS. WHAT SPECIFIC AGENDAS ARE YOU SPEAKING OF?

JOANNE KLOPPENBURG:

WELL, WITH PARTISAN POLITICS COME AGENDAS AND THOSE AGENDAS BELONG IN THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES. THEY SHOULDN’T BE BLEEDING OVER INTO THE COURT. AND WITH THE MASSIVE EXPENDITURES BY OUTSIDE SPECIAL INTERESTS THAT DON’T HAVE TO DISCLOSE THEIR DONORS COMES THE PERCEPTION THAT JUSTICE IS FOR SALE. THIS ELECTION PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COURT WORKS FOR EVERYONE.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

YOU’VE BEEN CRITICAL OF JUSTICE REBECCA BRADLEY FOR HER APPOINTMENT TO THE COURT AND TWO LOWER COURTS BY GOVERNOR WALKER. SHE REGARDS THIS, ON THE OTHER HAND, AS THE GOVERNOR’S DUTY AND OBLIGATION. WHY ARE YOU CRITICAL?

JOANNE KLOPPENBURG:

EVERY CANDIDATE PROMISES TO BE INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL WHEN THEY’RE ON THE COURT. AND THE QUESTION FOR THE VOTERS IS WHO IS GOING TO DELIVER ON THAT PROMISE. AND YOU CAN TELL THAT BY HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. AND REBECCA BRADLEY WAS APPOINTED THREE TIMES BY GOVERNOR WALKER TO THREE JUDGESHIPS IN THREE YEARS. AND THE LAST DECISION WAS A VERY POLITICAL DECISION TO APPOINT AN ANNOUNCED CANDIDATE TO AN OPEN SEAT ON THE COURT. AND THAT’S ACCOMPANIED BY HER HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, OF THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY, OF ACCEPTING HELP FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN HER CAMPAIGN AND CARRYING HER PARTISAN VIEW OF THE LAW TO THE COURT. HER VERY FIRST DECISIONS WITH THE SUPREME COURT WERE WITH JUSTICES GABLEMAN, PROSSER, ZIEGLER AND ROGGENSACK TO QUASH EFFORTS TO REVIEW THE JUDICIAL CODE OF CONDUCT, WHICH INCLUDES THE RECUSAL RULES, AND TO QUASH EFFORTS TO PROMOTE MORE TRANSPARENCY IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

NOW, I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT YOU’RE ENDORSED BY BIG-NAME DEMOCRATS AND UNIONS. HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT?

JOANNE KLOPPENBURG:

I AM THE ONLY ONE OF THE THREE CANDIDATES WHO WAS FIRST ELECTED TO THE COURT, AND I AM BUILDING ON MY BASE OF SUPPORT. WHEN I RAN IN 2011, I HAD 750,000 VOTES FROM PEOPLE OF ALL STRIPES. I AM BACKED BY PEOPLE IN GROUPS ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM IN WISCONSIN. I’M THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO’S BEEN TO ALL 72 COUNTIES AND THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO HAS PEOPLE PUBLICLY ENDORSING ME FROM EVERY COUNTY OF THE STATE. SO I TRULY HAVE A BROAD, STATEWIDE SUPPORT FOR MY CANDIDACY.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

ON THE MATTER OF JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY, THERE IS THE CONSERVATIVE AND THE LIBERAL LABEL THAT COMES FROM THIS. CONSERVATIVES OFTEN CRITICIZE LIBERALS FOR QUOTE LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH, WHERE THEY REGARD THEMSELVES AS SO-CALLED STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS, ONLY FOLLOWING THE LAW. WHERE DO YOU FALL IN YOUR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY?

JOANNE KLOPPENBURG:

I APPROACH EVERY CASE WITH AN OPEN MIND. I AM VERY FOCUSED AND DISCIPLINED IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION THAT’S PUT BEFORE THE PARTIES RATHER THAN THE QUESTION I MIGHT LIKE TO ANSWER. I CONFINE MYSELF TO THE RECORD THAT’S BEEN DEVELOPED BEFORE THE COURT. AND I ISSUE A DECISION THAT IS WELL-REASONED AND CLEAR AND UNDERSTANDABLE AND PRINCIPLED.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

WHEN YOU RAN IN 2011, YOUR CAMPAIGN WAS PUBLICLY FUNDED, AN OPTION NO LONGER AVAILABLE UNDER THE LAW. HOW IS THIS RACE DIFFERENT FOR YOU IN REGARD TO WHERE YOUR MONEY IS COMING FROM?

JOANNE KLOPPENBURG:

I, AS I NOTED BEFORE, AM BUILDING ON THAT BASE OF SUPPORT OF GETTING 750,000 VOTES WHEN I RAN BEFORE, AND I AM GRATIFIED BY THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT I’VE HAD FROM PEOPLE AROUND THE STATE TO RUN THE KIND OF CAMPAIGN THAT’S NECESSARY TO WIN THIS RACE.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

NOW, THE HIGH COURT HAS SUFFERED THE DESCRIPTION OF BEING DYSFUNCTIONAL. WHAT’S YOUR DEFINITION OF THAT? AND HOW DO YOU FIX IT?

JOANNE KLOPPENBURG:

PEOPLE COMMENT ALL THE TIME ABOUT THE PERCEIVED LACK OF COLLEGIALITY ON THE COURT, AND I AM HONORED TO HAVE BEEN CHOSEN TO BE THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF DISTRICT 4 ON THE COURT OF APPEALS BY MY COLLEAGUES, WITH WHOM I DON’T ALWAYS AGREE AFTER ONLY THREE YEARS ON THE BENCH. AND I TAKE THE JUSTICES AT THEIR WORD THAT THEY WANT TO IMPROVE COLLEGIALITY. BUT THE REAL ISSUE IS THE WORK OF THE COURT, WHETHER THE COURT IS ISSUING OPINIONS AND DECISIONS THAT ARE WELL-REASONED, FAIR, IMPARTIAL, ADDRESSING THE QUESTIONS BEFORE THE COURT AND ADHERING TO THE LAW. AND THERE ARE DECISIONS THAT RAISE RED FLAGS IN THOSE RESPECTS. THE VOTER I.D. BILL, THE JOHN DOE INVESTIGATION CASES AND THE ACT 10 CASES ALL HAD RAISED ISSUES OF CONCERN THAT I HEAR EXPRESSED BY PEOPLE AROUND THE STATE. AND I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THOSE ARE. WITH THE VOTER I.D. BILL, THE COURT INJECTED LANGUAGE OF ITS OWN TO MAKE THE LAW CONSTITUTIONAL INSTEAD OF LEAVING THAT LEGISLATION, THAT LAW-MAKING FUNCTION, TO THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES. IN THE JOHN DOE INVESTIGATION CASES, CONCURRING JUSTICES WENT OUTSIDE OF THE RECORD, RELYING ON INFORMATIN FOR THEIR DECISIONS THAT DID NOT COME FROM THE RECORD BEFORE THEM AND THAT WAS PROVEN LATER TO BECOME FALSE. AND THE DECISION ON THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS SO LONG AND COMPLICATED THAT IT CALLED INTO QUESTION THE SOUNDNESS OF THE ANALYSIS IN THE ORIGINAL DECISION. AND THEN THE SERIES OF ACT 10 CASES ALL SEEMED TO BE CASES IN WHICH THE JUSTICES WERE ANSWERING QUESTIONS THEY WANTED TO ANSWER INSTEAD OF THE ANSWERS THAT WERE BEING ASKED BY THE PARTIES.