Former Madison Mayor 'Dave' Says Scott Walker Is Right to Block Judge Appointments

Former "Mayor Dave" Knows Better Than Dane County Voters, He Says in Incoherent Column

Former Madison, Wisconsin, Mayor Dave Cieslewicz, is upset that Dane County voters decided not to vote for the Scott Walker appointee for judge in the April 2 election, as is Scott Walker.

Cieslewicz, like Walker, omits mention in his public comments that the Wisconsin Constitution guarantees voters have the final say on whom they elect as circuit court judges.

But Cieslewicz, like Walker, says he knows better than the voters, and they just didn't think this election through correctly.

Writes Cieslewicz:  "Look, I don't like the use of the Walker factor in these races. It brought down Judge Roger Allen a year ago, a good man who I worked with as an assistant city attorney. And this time around it brought down Rebecca St. John, who many attorneys that I respect told me was doing a very good job as an appointed judge."

Let's get Cieslewicz' position, such as it is, clear.

We need a change in judicial appointment procedure, you see, because Cieslewicz and Walker know better than voters; many attorneys told Cieslewicz that St. John was doing a fine job as judge, deserving of re-election though, Cieslewicz also points out, he endorsed St. John's opponent.

What?

Mayor Dave, it's becoming clear why you are the former mayor.

Now, Cieslewicz says, like Walker, that the governor should "appoint a panel of retired judges to make the (judicial) appointment on his behalf," because voters cannot be trusted to make the correct choice in voting for or against Scott Walker appointees for Dane County judge. In fact, let's do this in every county, counsels Cieslewicz.

Voters did not engage the correct calculus that Cieslewicz presumes to know in electing a circuit court judge, though again since he says he endorsed St. John's opponent, Rhonda Lanford, that calculus is elusive. Actually, Cieslewicz' calculus is incoherent.

This animus toward the democratic system of representative government that Scott Walker exhibits is apparently catching on, and Cieslewicz is either wrong-headed, disdainful of representative government, or cynically and ineptly angling for another run at some public office, or currying favor with the GOP.

What he is not doing is making a whole lot of sense.

But the Wisconsin Constitution remains, irrespective of what Cieslewicz or Walker may wish:

Wisconsin Constitution, Article VII. Judiciary (Section 7. [Circuit court: election.]:

For each circuit there shall be chosen by the qualified electors thereof one or more circuit judges as prescribed by law. Circuit judges shall be elected for 6-year terms and shall reside in the circuit from which elected. ...

If Cieslewicz doesn't trust the voters to make the proper decisions on judgeships, advocate repealing Article VII and the annoying section that pertains to voters electing judges in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin State Journal takes this position.

Cieslewicz is not arrogant, or maybe he is.

But Cieslewicz is pathetic in his assertion that he votes for candidates for the correct reasons, whereas voters elect candidates for the wrong reasons, as divined by Cieslewicz and Walker.

By the way, I voted for Rhonda Lanford, because I am a constitutionally qualified elector who decided that St. John either lied or was truthful on her application for judge in which St. John spouted rightwing platitudes echoing Walker's (what Lester Pines called rightwing "dog whistles") in an apparent effort to get the gig. Besides, I believe Lanford to be a brilliant jurist, and the best candidate for the position.

Why Dane County (Wisconsin) Voters Will Vote Out Scott Walker Appointee

Rebecca St. John's kisses up to Scott Walker
 on her application for judgeship (WKOW)

Three jurists running for Dane County (Wisconsin) judge and the Wisconsin Supreme Court all figure into a case in which an innocent man was freed as a result of the Wisconsin Supreme Court case—Wisconsin v. Armstrong.

And this case may determine the winner of a Dane County Circuit Judge election between Judge Rebecca St. John (appointed by Gov. Scott Walker) and Rhonda Lonford (a favorite of progressives).

Yet another innocent man was freed after DNA proved law enforcement and the DA's office convicted the wrong guy in 1980.


The innocent man, Ralph Armstrong, after serving over two decades in prison for a crime he die not commit was granted a new trial after the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered it in a four-three decision in 2005, and on July 30, 2009, a judge dismissed the charges.

Armstrong was sentenced to life-plus 16 years for a crime he did not commit.

The dissenting opinion which would have put a man behind bars for life in Wisconsin for a crime which he did not commit was written by Justice Pat Roggensack who is facing reelection on April 2 from an independent bid from Ed Fallone, stressing a rule-of-law approach and independence on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

On the one hand, Scott Walker appointee, Judge Rebecca St. John, opposed the reversal, calling it one of the worst Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions, though again it resulted in an innocent man being cleared of a wrongful conviction, as reported by Joe Tarr of Isthmus weekly.

St. John's opponent, Rhonda Lanford, said the opposite, calling the decision one of the best, also reported by Joe Tarr of Isthmus weekly, precisely because a man was freed of a crime he did not commit.

What is up with St. John?

A locally well-known progressive Madison attorney, Lester Pines, has written that St John's application for the Dane County judge vacancy is full of "dog whistles" meant to appeal to Republican ears.

Convicting innocent people of crimes, and leaving them in prison. GOP justices love it. Shows they're tough on crime.

And as attorney Pines writes of St. John's application to judgeship:

[St, John writes]: 'According to the Supreme Court, all laws are to be sustained against a constitutional challenge unless they are unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. Too often, circuit court judges pay merely lip service to this standard. Yet to preserve our representative democracy, it is essential that circuit court apply this deference.'

"I have litigated numerous constitutional cases in state court. In my 37 years of practice I have not seen or heard of a constitutional challenge in which the judge 'merely' paid 'lip service' to his or her obligation to follow the law."

Dog whistles. Try dog sirens.