Here & Now

Janet Protasiewicz on the 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court Race

Frederica Freyberg:

In “Here & Now” 2023 election reporting, the second in our series of interviews with the candidates running in the February 21 primary for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. There are four primary candidates vying for two spots moving to the April 4 general election, two conservatives and two liberals, and whoever wins will determine the ideological balance of the court. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Janet Protasiewicz is one of the liberals in the race. She was a Milwaukee County assistant district attorney for 26 years before being elected to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 2014. Here’s senior political reporter Zac Schultz with Judge Protasiewicz.

Zac Schultz:

What were some of the reasons that made you decide to want to enter the race?

Janet Protasiewicz:

How critically important the race is. And how critically high the stakes in this race are. I was at a pretty comfortable position in my life, quite frankly, and I sat back and started thinking about this race last spring. The more I thought about it, the more I couldn’t sit back and let partisan far right extremists hijack our Supreme Court because everything we care about is on the line. Everything I care about is on the line. I think that everything many, many people care about is on the line. I’ve had contested races. I like to campaign. I like people. The issues are so absolutely critical. I decided to get into the race.

Zac Schultz:

How did you come to the decision on how you would talk to voters about what you care about versus some other candidates in this election who are trying to keep everything pretty plain, talking about the law and the Constitution?

Janet Protasiewicz:

Well, right, and, I mean, I think that we pretty much know how much people care about certain issues. We pretty much know. So my position really is people who are just talking about the Constitution and the law, that’s a personal choice of theirs, I suppose. On the other hand, they may not wish to share what their values or ideas are on some of the issues that are really, really important to voters. So when I talk to voters, I say I can tell you what my values are. I can’t tell you what I will do on any particular case. But I’ll tell you what my values are, I tell you what I think is important. And that’s really how I frame it when I talk to people, because obviously I have to follow the Constitution. Obviously, I have to follow the law. But people are very, very concerned about a wide variety of issues. They’re concerned about women’s right to choose. They’re concerned about fair maps. They’re concerned about community safety. They’re concerned about clean water. They’re concerned about marriage equality. So we talk about those issues in terms of what my values are.

Zac Schultz:

So how do your values then translate to decisions from the bench?

Janet Protasiewicz:

Well, I still have to follow the Constitution. I have to follow the law. But I think we all know that there is a significant ability to interpret the laws, the stare decisis, what has come before us. There’s significant things that can be interpreted in different ways and you can tell that just based on how courts split on their decisions and how there can be a very well-reasoned opinion and a very well-reasoned dissent, right? So you can tell that there are, you know, well-thought-out decisions on both sides, but it’s pretty clear to me, it’s very, very clear to me, that women and men in this state are very, very concerned about a woman’s right to choose. Very, very concerned about it. And so I tell them, you know, you should know my value. You should know my value. And my value is that bottom line is, you know, discuss the issue with your clergy, discuss it with your medical care provider, discuss it with your family or your significant other, but in the end, that decision is really your decision. That’s what my value is. Where would you come down on if a case was brought in front of the court? That’s a separate evaluation.

Zac Schultz:

Along this path towards announcing and running, did anyone say, well, maybe you shouldn’t broadcast those values so loudly. In this kind of campaign, maybe this is — you should code your language a little more so the voters know, with a wink, what you intend but you don’t say it so plainly.

Janet Protasiewicz:

I don’t know why I would do that. I mean, I certainly hear from the far right, she’s telling you what she’s going to do. The criticism is, if she’s telling you what her values are, she’s telling you what she’s going to do. Certainly I’ve heard the criticism. But I think voters want to know. I mean, these issues are really, really on the forefront. They want to know what kind of values a Supreme Court justice is going to bring. So here’s what I say to that. We have had so much extremism, we have had so much of a thumb on the scale, we have had so much where you can kind of predetermine what the outcome of a case is going to be, and that’s just absolutely wrong. You need a Supreme Court justice who’s going to follow the law and uphold the Constitution. That’s what you need. And so you need to, like, let people know what you’re thinking. Common sense and change. We’re trying to get away from all of that extremism and bring common sense and change to our Supreme Court. And that’s really what I keep going back to, common sense and change. And that’s what people want. They’re tired of the dysfunction on the Supreme Court. People tell me that they think the courts should be different, wholly different, than the Legislature and from time to time the executive branch. They should be steps above. They should be places of integrity. And it is so different, the role of the Supreme Court, and the way the Supreme Court distinguishes itself from the legislators and sometimes from, you know, the executive branch. It’s very different. And you want to bring that back. You want to bring back that change, that common sense, that decorum, that dignity, that integrity to the Supreme Court.

Zac Schultz:

When you look at the other candidates running in this primary, obviously I’m sure you would say you are the best choice for voters, but do you think the other candidates are also qualified for the Supreme Court?

Janet Protasiewicz:

I don’t. I think you have two people on the right who are very similarly aligned that are very extreme, that don’t reflect the people in this state. I have a friendly opponent on the left. My opinion is I have longer, broader, deeper experience than he has. So, you know, that’s where I come down.

Zac Schultz:

When you hear from someone like Dan Kelly saying that, well, we can predict how you vote, you’re signaling too much because of where your background is, but he claims that he’s completely independent, and no one will be able to tell, but he’s appeared at Trump rallies. He’s been endorsed by Republicans, he was appointed by a Republican. Is it better to be out and open about where your support is or to pretend that you’re in a lane?

Janet Protasiewicz:

Well, pretending you’re in a lane is so disingenuous. I look at Dan Kelly, he was recently touring the state with, of all people, of all people, Michael Gabelman on an election integrity tour. What were they trying to do? Peddle the big lie that the 2020 election was stolen. We all know that election wasn’t stolen. We know in his last race, he was doing some of, if not all, of his campaigning out of the Republican Party headquarters, right? So, you know, when he made the comments that he made at the forum, they’re quite frankly laughable that those could come out of his mouth with a straight face.

Zac Schultz:

Another opponent in this race is Jennifer Dorow, and she gained fame through appearing as a judge that reached a lot of celebrity status. How much should we put into that, pushing her name recognition forward and rocket-fueling her campaign? Is that what should qualify her for the bench?

Janet Protasiewicz:

No, absolutely not. Now, Darrell Brooks, a very difficult, so to speak, defendant who committed some violent, atrocious crimes, no doubt about it. I’ve told you I’ve spent three years in homicide and sexual assault court, two years with those drug dealers, a year with those domestic violence offenders. Darrell Brooks’ personality is not a unique personality. I’ve seen his personality in court over and over and over with the types of cases that I’ve handled. That’s our job as a judge, to handle that type of personality amongst many others. You know, my house has been under surveillance on numerous occasions because of the types of people that I deal with, because of the death threats that, you know, I have had, you know, that affect myself, my family, my neighborhood. So propelling somebody into running due to one particular case, I think is wholly inappropriate.

Zac Schultz:

What have you felt in terms of the national attention, given this race, and that Wisconsin Supreme Court races used to be relatively sleepy, so to speak, and now we’ve got “New York Times” articles talking about the most important race you haven’t heard of.

Janet Protasiewicz:

Yeah, it’s really interesting. I have to say quite frankly I was surprised, because, you know, I share that assessment. Usually these Supreme Court races are kind of sleepy and it’s a little bit challenging to get out the vote and it a spring election, and in Wisconsin we know that spring election is a primary in February, which is right in the heart of winter. So yes, I was, I would have to say, somewhat surprised by the national attention.