Frederica Freyberg:

Finally tonight, we have the fourth in our series of interviews with the candidates for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The primary is on February 21st with the top two vote getters advancing to the general election in April. Earlier this week “Here & Now” senior political reporter Zac Schultz sat down with Jennifer Dorow, a Waukesha County circuit court judge.

Zac Schultz:

Can you break down your judicial philosophy for me?

Jennifer Dorow:

Sure, I’m a judicial conservative which means I believe in upholding the law as written and applying that law to the facts of every case, giving deference to our legislative statutes because that’s where policy is made and never, ever legislating from the bench.

Zac Schultz:

How do you define legislating from the bench because there’s a lot of disagreement over when a court makes a ruling whether they’re rearranging the law to fit a need or an opinion versus this is all we have to go on?

Jennifer Dorow:

When a judge or justice inserts their own political agenda, policy views or personal opinions on what the law should be, that’s my definition of legislating from the bench. And I say that because it’s the role of a judge to apply the law as written to the facts of the cases that come before us, to never prejudge those cases, to be fair and impartial and in our government. We have a system that’s set up, a very clear separation of powers. Our legislative figures, our Assemblymen, our senators, they make the law. That’s where the policy of the state is set. And then judges interpret that when called upon to do that. It’s very important that judges act more like umpires, right? We don’t make the law, we just decide the law and if you think of the analogy to baseball, right? Just calling the balls and strikes, not the pitcher, not the catcher, but just calling the balls and strikes and that’s what a judge does and a justice should do is call the legal balls and strikes that come before him or her.

Zac Schultz:

So you said the politics shouldn’t enter into the decision but obviously this is a political race and there are a lot of political factors weighing in to all the candidates and when constituents are out there thinking about who they want to vote for, some of them are thinking through a political frame of reference. How do you balance that when you want people to know that you will be impartial on the bench but people also want to have a sense of your politics?

Jennifer Dorow:

It’s very important to honor that this is a non-partisan race and that my political views or my policy preferences are not going to impact what I do on the bench. It’s very different from the liberal candidates and I know we give them labels, right, liberal and conservative and I think that’s just a simple way to identify for the public what our judicial philosophies are and what our approach to the law is but you have two candidates who are openly giving us their political agenda, campaigning on a political agenda and forecasting how they would vote on many important issues. They’re telling the future litigants, their mind is made up. They don’t care about the facts. They don’t care about the law. Vote for me because I’ll do x, y or z. That is not the methodology I will follow and that I have been following for 11 years on the bench. It’s really important every judge and justice stay in their constitutional lane and that’s what I’ll do.

Zac Schultz:

What should voters then think of your background? Who you were appointed by? Who’s endorsing you? Who’s supporting you? Where the outside money that’s going to support you comes from? Where your family members and their connections to other political figures because obviously those exist and the liberal candidates in this race are saying, well, we’re just being upfront and honest with voters and it’s the conservatives who are trying to hide where the real influence may be.

Jennifer Dorow:

The candidates on the left are telling you about a political agenda when this is not a race for a legislative or gubernatorial position. That’s why it’s important for me as someone who believes in upholding the rule of law and being fair and impartial to not talk about my personal preferences. You know, I wear a robe for a reason. One of those reasons is to show the public, show the litigants and then remind me that I need to be fair and impartial. I cover up those personal preferences so that I make a decision based on the law. When you make a decision based on the law, you have predictability, reliability and stability.

Zac Schultz:

I want to look back at a few cases the Supreme Court has decided that are still pretty important. Legislature versus Palm was about the governor’s ability to put the restrictions during COVID. How do you think that case was handled? How would you have ruled if you had been on the bench at the time?

Jennifer Dorow:

The majority opinion in that case was written by Justice Roggensack and they focused on that it was a rule that had universal applicability to the people of Wisconsin and that that procedure was not followed and that certainly I found myself looking at their analysis and saying they got it right. Of course, every case is different and I don’t want to prejudge cases that might come before the court again or in the future that look at issues of authority for a branch of government whether it’s directly or delegation.

Zac Schultz:

Abortion is another issue that’s likely going to come back to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I want to ask you how you might rule on that but on the Dobbs decision that is now the law of the land, do you think that was decided fairly and is that the appropriate method for which to review any law or is it now Wisconsin law that needs to be looked at on its own outside of Dobbs?

Jennifer Dorow:

As a Supreme Court case from the U.S. Supreme Court, it obviously is the law of the land and I’m duty bound to follow that. What that case did is put the decision of regulating abortion in the hands of the state legislature. That’s where that decision should be made and of course there is a challenge right now. It’s not a constitutional challenge. The question that’s before the court will really be what is the status of the law in Wisconsin? I won’t comment any further, right, because that’s likely to make its way up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. But again, as a sitting judge and as a hopeful to be on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I have to give honor to the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Zac Schultz:

Is there a danger in voters approaching this election looking through only the prism of one or two hot-button political issues and saying I’m going to vote for the candidate that most closely follows my views there as opposed to more broadly looking at what do I want in a Supreme Court justice?

Jennifer Dorow:

I think the danger is there’s candidates who are openly campaigning on a political agenda on a couple of very important and controversial topics and voters should be looking at how are the justices going to decide the cases that come before the court? Not just on a couple of topics but on all topics. That’s where being fair and impartial, as judges, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, to uphold the Constitution of the state of Wisconsin and to faithfully discharge the duties of our office to be fair and impartial. That’s what justices and judges should do that honors the role of the courts. It honors the role of the legislature and it honors the voice of the people as well because the people speak through our legislators and that’s where policy is made. I will never insert my policy preferences into the decisions that I make. I think that’s what voters will be looking at so that they know whatever the issue is that comes before the court, they can trust the decisions that are made.

Zac Schultz:

Finally, this is getting a lot of attention both in Wisconsin and nationally, how much will that affect the race that people are starting to understand the importance of this particular race to the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

Jennifer Dorow:

It’s a position on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. It’s incredibly important to the people of the state of Wisconsin. I can certainly see that as I go around the state campaigning and there are a lot of eyes looking at this race as well, I think for the wrong reasons. I think there’s a push from the left to push this political agenda so that not only Wisconsin can be transformed and not in a good way, not through the legislative process but through a vote of 4-3 on the Wisconsin Supreme Court so that other political agendas can be met as well. That’s wrong. It has no place in the courts and I do believe the people of the state of Wisconsin see that and want a court that’s fair and impartial instead of one driven by a political agenda.