Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Declines Recusal in High-Profile Ethics Case
Justice Janet Protasiewicz of the Wisconsin Supreme Court has chosen to remain involved in the ethical misconduct proceedings against Michael Gableman, a former justice known for his controversial investigation into the 2020 presidential election results in Wisconsin. Despite Gableman’s request for her to step aside, citing potential bias, Protasiewicz has asserted her ability to remain impartial in the matter.
The disciplinary case against Gableman includes a series of severe allegations, with a court-appointed referee suggesting a three-year suspension of his law license. Among the accusations are his refusal to disclose efforts to obtain records and testimonies from Green Bay and Madison mayors, derogatory remarks towards a female attorney, and claims of bias against a Dane County judge, alongside withholding public records.
Gableman, who has acknowledged his inability to contest these allegations effectively, attempted to have several liberal justices, including Protasiewicz, recused from the case. During her 2022 campaign for the Supreme Court, Protasiewicz criticized Gableman’s investigation as “disgraceful” and deemed him “not fit to be on the bench.” Nevertheless, she has defended her participation, stating that her earlier comments merely addressed the importance of judicial independence.
“I am confident that I can, in fact and appearance, act impartially in this attorney disciplinary proceeding,” Protasiewicz affirmed, emphasizing that Gableman did not sufficiently prove the necessity of her recusal.
Gableman has filed motions for the recusal of other liberal justices, such as Rebecca Dallet and Susan Crawford. While Dallet has declined to step down, Crawford has opted out of the proceedings to avoid conflicts of interest, having worked with the judge criticized by Gableman. This decision leaves the court evenly divided between liberal and conservative justices.
The controversy traces back to Gableman’s tenure as head of the Office of Special Counsel, where he led an inquiry into the 2020 election, backed by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos amidst false claims of voter fraud by President Trump. Gableman’s report suggested reevaluating the election results, a stance criticized as legally untenable. His relationship with Vos soured, leading to his dismissal and Vos describing him as an “embarrassment” to the legal profession, with hopes for his disbarment.
