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.

Scott Walker Says He'll Fill Judge Vacancies upon Judges' Promise Not to Seek Election

Wisconsin Constitution - "For each circuit there shall be chosen by the
qualified electors thereof one or more circuit judges as prescribed by law

Walker singles out Dane County voters again for not voting as he instructs. Naked display of ignorance and a tantrum from a governor not fit for office

Scott Walker still does not get it.

Granted, Walker is distracted jetting around the country again posing as a 2016 presidential candidate, while avoiding public mention of his promise of 250,000 jobs by the end of his first term.

Yet, Walker expounded yesterday on his childish comments that because two of his three appointments to the Dane County bench were rejected by voters, this means he may not fill judicial vacancies in this one county.

Dane County voters are not doing as Scott Walker instructs them to do.

So, to edify our governor, let's point to the 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.

It is the right of voters to decide to elect judicial appointees; this is what happens in a democracy.

For the further education of Gov. Walker on the matter of judicial vacancies in Wisconsin:

SECTION 9. [Judicial elections, vacancies.] When a vacancy occurs in the office of justice of the supreme court or judge of any court of record, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment by the governor, which shall continue until a successor is elected and qualified.

Now, Walker said he may, as reported by Mary Spicuzza today, "name retired judges or lawyers to fill vacancies in heavily Democratic Dane County, (only) with the understanding that his appointees would not seek election to the position."

Spicuzza quotes Walker, saying he knows Dane County jurists so well only jurists not in their right mind will apply for vacant judgeships: "The reason I said that wasn't out of spite. It's just simple. Nobody in their right mind is going to accept an appointment in Dane County. It's the only county that's unique in that situation. Because why would they leave their position — no matter where they're at, be it public or private service — to take on that, only to turn around and seemingly be automatic that they weren't going to win the next election."

Dane County Judge Frank Remington was appointed by Scott Walker in 2011 and ran unopposed last year. But Walker does not mention Judge Remington.

In Walker's math two of three of his appointments' losing means "automatic." And I can assure readers Judge Remington is quite sane, and is in his "right mind."

In any event, to repeat it is the right of voters to decide to elect judicial appointees or not; this is what happens in Wisconsin democracy. And it is a constitutional thing.

As for Dane County jurists, this is news to Scott Walker, but there are plenty of public-minded, rule-of-law jurists who will apply for judgeships when vacancies occur out of a sense of public service that eludes Scott Walker's consciousness.

Many jurists serve and honor the bench because of their dedication to the rule of law, not dedication to winning the next election.

Scott Walker will never understand that.

Scott Walker's disdain for democracy on display

Scott Walker says he may not fill Dane County vacancies for judges because his appoitments lose elections.

Walker's Logic

Walker said his judicial appointments in Dane County, after being vetted by voters, were defeated in the electoral arena, so it follows that Walker should not make any appointments, no matter the negative consequences to the judicial branch and the public.

After the second of Walker's preferred judicial candidates lost an election for "political" reasons—two Walker appointments for Dane County judge were defeated the last two years—Walker said in the future it "probably doesn't make a lot of sense to go through that appointment process," and he should leave judicial vacancies unfilled.

Yes, Scott Walker, voters do make political decisions in elections. Seriously, you don't know that? It's called democracy.

One wonders if it ever occurs to Scott Walker that voters are served by the democratic process in a representative democracy?

Write Mary Spicuzza and Ed Treleven:

Walker told reporters it was "unfortunate" that Dane County Circuit Judge Rebecca St. John lost Tuesday's election. She was defeated by attorney Rhonda Lanford, who used the Walker connection (and St. John's own words) to attack St. John during the campaign.


"The mayor, the (district attorney) and others said that St. John was a great candidate," Walker said. "Unfortunately I think that politics has trumped that."

Why is this "unfortunate"?

Since when is the democratic process an unfortunate event?

Walker has no conception, apparently, that voters elect representatives. This is not hyperbole.

It's clear Walker hates the idea that many Wisconsin citizens reject him and often see anyone associated with him in a negative light.

But it does not even occur to Walker that voters expressing their will in a democracy is fundamental to representative government.

That's why Walker and the Republicans feel no sense of shame in their voter obstruction efforts. They simply do not believe in democracy.

Walker's response to his appointed judge losing is that of a petulant, narcissistic child in the governor's mansion with no regard for the voters, the judiciary and the democratic process.

Write Spicuzza and Treleven:

Dane County Circuit Judge William Foust, who is the chief judge for the fifth judicial administrative district, said a decision not to fill judicial vacancies may be a disservice to those whose cases are assigned to vacant branches. Cases could languish because other judges are too busy to take up the load.

"The other 16 judges are not sitting around twiddling their thumbs," Foust said 

Just another display of Walker's hatred of democracy.

Here's some more:

• Walker and the Republicans secretly gerrymander the assembly, senate and congressional districts
•  Walker wants to be able to declare an emergency if citizens express disapproval with him at our capitol
•  Walker packed the Wisconsin Judicial Commission with the GOP's John Gard-approved GOP donors
•  Walker attacks voters with the voter obstruction (voter ID) law held unconstitutional on its face

Politics Is Local; Wisconsin GOP Politics Remain Corrupt

Fitchburg, Wisconsin alder,
Dorothy Krause beats back
a racist whisper campaign

Updated - Unofficial Turnout 19.3 percent for April 2 Wisconsin Election -
No major surprises in Wisconsin outside of a longtime Madison alder getting beat on the near-west side by progressive newcomer, John Strasser.

Overwhelming money again bought a GOP Supreme Court justice reelection.

Progressive politics continues to dominate in Dane County, Wisconsin.

In Fitchburg, Wisconsin alder, Dorothy Krause, handily beat back a challenge that featured a racist, whisper campaign from some involved in a neighborhood association who tried to divide minority and young voters from the community.

Not sure folks can use neighborhood associations that way in electoral campaigns, I know they ought not.

That racist campaign lost. As a 93-year-old black man, named Percy, said to me, "I was here again to cast my vote again, sir," as he waited for a cab. I asked him if he wanted a chair [state law allows election inspectors to make reasonable accommodations], and he said he was fine

His dignity did our election night proud.

Alder Krause won by knocking on doors and talking to people, even renters and minorities. "Everyone in my district counts," Krause told me over the weekend.

Our sitting corrupt, GOP justice—aided by the Wisconsin Club for Growth and the Wisconsin Manufactures and Commerce's spending $100,000s—won by vastly outspending her opponent, Ed Fallone in a low voter turnout affair.

With 99 percent of precincts reporting, Justice Pat Roggensack had 478,420 votes to Fallone's 355,591 votes.

Compare those totals to Wisconsin's second-in-the-nation turnout (some 72 percent) in the 2012 presidential general election:  1,620,985 votes (Obama-Biden) to 1,407,966 votes (Romney-Ryan), and every serious political observer sees why an unscrupulous GOP wants to obstruct voters from voting.

President Obama's total vote alone was almost twice that of the Roggensack-Fallone race total vote combined.

Don't look for Roggensack to recuse herself from cases involving the two groups [Wisconsin Club for Growth and the Wisconsin Manufactures and Commerce]; they put her back into office and Roggensack serves for their purposes and that of the Republican Party.

Tony Evers, Wisconsin State School Superintendent, beat a Republican, anti-public school whack whom even some Republicans were reportedly embarrassed to have in the rightwing, gerrymandered state assembly.

In Dane County, Rhonda Lanford beat a Scott Walker-appointed judge (thought well of by many Democrats) who was perceived as cozying up too much with Walker by spouting Republican judicial pablum in her application for the job.

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.