Choosing a New Supreme Court Justice – Here’s How To Get the Best One for the Job

Every aspect of modern society is now politicized. If it’s not a celebrity trying to score “woke points” during a concert, it’s the increasingly political tactics used to advertise almost any issue.

In Wisconsin, a lot of this is on display during the current State Supreme Court election. As one of the highest offices in the state, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has long prided itself on its impartiality. However, this is now being obscured by shiny TV ads and powerful slogans.

Whoever wins on April 4th will strongly impact Wisconsin’s rule of law. This is not a responsibility that should go to media personalities but to experienced judges and legal experts. If you want to make an informed choice, you’ll have to dig in a bit deeper.

Look at their Previous Rulings

According to Wisconsin’s Code of Judicial Conduct, all judges in the state should keep their biases and personal positions out of their rulings. For Supreme Court justices, this is even more important, as the decisions they make are then embedded in our judicial code.

As a result, many candidates will prefer to hide their personal opinions as they campaign, even if their past rulings clearly show whether they are willing to defend families and children.

Every once in a while, an absurd exception comes along. The latest example is Janet Protasiewicz: rather than express her commitment to neutrality, she has openly pandered to the most radical elements within the state.

Research their Donors

Elections need money, and whoever provides that money, usually ends up with a fair amount of political clout.

Election campaigns often handle large amounts of money to the point that numbers alone don’t tell the full story. For example, both major candidates have each totaled over $3 million in campaign donations.

The real red flag? When said amount comes from a single, highly-political donor, such as the Democrat Party, who recently provided $2.5 million to the Protasiewicz campaign. How big an influence does that buy?

The motivation of these donors is also worth examining. It’s one thing to have everyday families show support with a backyard sign. But when we see outside elites investing heavily in a state they don’t live in, we need to ask why. Could it be the nationwide repercussions of a local electoral reform? Or are they building a case for the next big “choose-your-own-gender” case?

Examine Their Attitude towards Public Scrutiny

Public office comes with public scrutiny – and when aiming for one of the most influential  judicial positions in the country, it’s important to prove you can handle it.

This can be gathered from the little details: courtesy, an eagerness to accept difficult questions, and a sincere display of humility. Equally important is to respect the office you are running for, rather than sacrifice its reputation for the sake of political points.

Here, Justice Dan Kelly recently provided one of the strongest examples of fair-mindedness and transparency:

If you think as a candidate that you should be virtue signaling to attract the votes of a certain body of Wisconsinites, what you’re telling them is that you are not — you are not committed to the constitutional order, and you’re telling them that the politics should have a role in the court, even if you don’t intend to follow through on that… – PBS Wisconsin

This call for transparency and moderation speaks of a much more responsible judicial approach. And when push comes to shove, this is a legacy worth keeping. Protect the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Vote for Justice Daniel Kelly on April 4th.

Authorized and paid for by Wisconsin Family Action, Inc. Not authorized or paid for by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Who is Janet Protasiewicz – And How Does She Feel About Your Family?

Nationally, it may be an off-election year across the country, but for Wisconsin, we are at the brink of several important choices. On April 4th, we will elect the newest addition to the State’s Supreme Court.

As the highest authority when interpreting state law, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court is tasked with ensuring any piece of legislation is applied fairly and consistently. They also make sure that the government itself respects the laws and protects citizens’ rights from undue interference.

Just like all our leaders, a Supreme Court justice should be someone with great character, who is committed to impartiality and to the principles of freedom. They have the power to shepherd us towards a better society – to shun personal gain or bias for the public good. The two candidates on the ballot are Justice Daniel Kelly and Janet Protasiewicz. Both present as nonpartisan judges, but a close look at Protasiewicz shows she is far from apolitical. 

What kind of Supreme Court justice would Protasiewicz be?

When selecting a Supreme Court justice, voters and even court experts find it difficult to predict how each candidate will perform. This is an impartial position; so hidden biases and political agendas should never be a factor. 

One good thing about candidate Janet Protasiewicz: she doesn’t hide her political opinions. This gives voters in Wisconsin the opportunity to ask ourselves, do her political opinions match the society we want to live in? Take a look at what her resume shows.

1.  An open abortion supporter

Both in ads and when talking to the press, Janet Protasiewicz loves any opportunity to talk about her pro-choice beliefs. She has expressed to media outlet WKOW her wish to preserve the “legacy” of Roe v. Wade, and routinely expresses her belief “in a woman’s right to choose.”

 Interestingly, Protasiewicz’s comments appear to be in direct violation of Wisconsin’s Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that judges should NOT make public statements that give an indication of how they would decide certain issues nor are they to let their biases interfere with their decisions.

2. Believes in “gender fluidity”

A quick look at her list of organizations that support her shows a series of “gender ideology” causes – the same think-tanks who wish to impose “modern” myths about gender fluidity, and ban parents and God from school libraries. Groups such as Human Rights Campaign. Talk about extreme.


3.      A big receiver of Democrat money

Protasiewicz’s partisan opinions have found their way into the public discourse for a very simple reason: her aggressive and well-funded campaign.

Following a donation of over $2.5 million dollars by Wisconsin’s Democratic Party, Protasiewicz quickly became a favorite of radio hosts and bloggers for hire. By being so open about her Democrat agenda, she has now jeopardized her future judicial duties. As a result, she recently admitted she would need to recuse herself from any cases involving the Democratic party.

4.      A history of questioning institutional procedures

Finally, the most serious red flag in her resume is her history of contradicting and questioning the institution she belongs to. When asked about possible redistricting initiatives, she responded:

“[The state legislative district maps] are rigged, period.  I’m coming right out and saying that.  I don’t think you could sell to any reasonable person that the maps are fair.”

The US Supreme Court threw out the maps the Democrats had drawn, and the state Supreme Court had originally approved. Once the maps were rejected by the US high court, the state Supreme Court reversed course and adopted another set drawn by Republicans. But that’s not good enough for Protasiewicz. Her open disrespect for both the US Supreme Court’s and the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decisions on these maps calls into question her general opinion of the country’s institutions and of the rule of law. What’s more, they could jeopardize national politics as well: the path to the White House next year goes directly through Wisconsin. The curiously blue tint to her “fair map” could give liberal candidates electoral seats to take the country.

What Could This Mean for Wisconsin?

Supreme Court justices in our state serve for 10 years. This is more than enough time to leave a lasting mark on our laws. The full social damage of these initiatives may not become obvious until much later – but it will undoubtedly steer Wisconsin left faster and further than most of us can even imagine. For voters who want to be free to worship God according to the dictates of their faith and conscience, or who want to keep their traditional families free from outside agendas, the result of the April 4th election is critical.

Which Wisconsin do you want to live in? 

Protect the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Vote for Daniel Kelly on April 4th.

Authorized and paid for by Wisconsin Family Action, Inc. Not authorized or paid for by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Protasiewicz v. Kelly – Who Has Your Interests at Heart?

On April 4th, the people of Wisconsin have a chance to choose the newest member of our Supreme Court. Over the next 10 years, the winner will hold one of the most important offices in the state’s entire judiciary.

While not as flashy as presidential or gubernatorial elections, an election for the Supreme Court will deeply impact the rule of law in our state. The Supreme Court’s decisions help ensure that all laws are applied as intended – a task that requires scholarship and subtlety.

The two candidates on our ballots are Judge Janet Protasiewicz and Justice Daniel Kelly. They are two vastly different personalities, with very different approaches to the role of the judiciary and the role of a judge or justice. By examining their careers and positions, you can learn which one deserves to be trusted with your vote.

Their careers

First, let’s look at the experience each candidate brings to the table.

Janet Protasiewicz has spent nearly twenty years in the legal profession. Although initially a prosecutor, she then became a Circuit Court Judge.

Despite her professional trajectory, Protasiewicz’s direct experience with political offices is relatively limited. As a judge, she has served mainly at the Family Court, as well as for homicide and sexual assault cases – largely, “clear-cut” situations where there’s a right and a wrong.

On the other hand, Daniel Kelly’s career already includes one partial term on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court (2016-2020).  Here, he issued winning opinions in many high-profile cases. Through his votes and written opinions, he has helped preserve Second Amendment rights and free market conditions. He consistently voted and wrote in ways that verify his conservative, originalist credentials. His past experience is a powerful indicator of future performance.

Their position on judicial activism

Janet Protasiewicz has been very open about her many radical views. Instead of empowering families to make their own moral choices, she is working towards a world where men and women are not equal, but exactly the same, and where the State has the final word on who we should be allowed to pray to, or what we should learn. Rather than uphold the rule of law , her “true calling” seems to be reshaping society into an extreme version of “modernity”.

Such transparent opinions are not common among Supreme Court candidates, and for a reason. The Wisconsin Judicial Code of Ethics clearly indicates that rulings should come free from personal bias, and must stem from the letter of the law, rather than subjective beliefs.

On the other side of the ring, Justice Dan Kelly takes a much different approach–a strongly principled approach. He is staunchly opposed to judicial activism and deals with the laws as they are.

The same integrity and commitment to principle is seen in his personal life: Justice Daniel Kelly  is a devout Christian in a long-term, stable marriage. Both his wife and his five children steer clear of controversies, devote time to charity, and follow the same all-American values that most traditional Wisconsinites do.

Their attitude toward the rule of law

On paper and in some public statements in media interviews, both candidates say they  believe in respecting the law and holding criminals accountable. Yet, in practice, they could not be more different.

Daniel Kelly is a self-professed constitutionalist, who sees his job as a judge and a justice as a duty, with his authority deriving from “we the people.” In his four years on the Supreme Court, he used his role to preserve order and the rule of law and did not engage in judicial activism.

On the other hand, Janet Protasiewicz is often too eager to criticize the institutions she serves, institutions entrusted with the rule of law. She has openly contradicted the U.S. Supreme Court and the Wisconsin Supreme Court when it comes to the state’s legislative maps, calling them “unfair” and even “rigged.” When combined with her obvious opposition to the state’s current laws on abortions, her desire to change the laws around her becomes clear. Perhaps next time she should run for the State Assembly?

The Choice is Clear

If you believe in the judicial system and the rule of ,then the choice is crystal clear. Protect the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Vote for Justice Daniel Kelly on April 4th.  

Authorized and paid for by Wisconsin Family Action, Inc. Not authorized or paid for by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Protasiewicz’s endorsements speak just as loudly as her words

Protasiewicz’s endorsements speak just as loudly as her words

Political candidates’ endorsements often speak volumes about how an elected official will handle critical issues.

In the case of Judge Janet Protasiewicz, candidate for Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, her endorsements astonishingly speak just as loudly as her own words, which are already bluntly liberal and arguably unethical.

“In regard to the progressive label,” she says, “I embrace that [label] when it comes to issues such as gerrymandering, when we talk about the maps, when we talk about marriage equality, when we talk about women’s rights and women’s rights to choose.”

Read more…

Why Not Janet Protasiewicz

Why Not Janet Protasiewicz

“What I would tell you is that [on] the bulk of issues, the myriad number of issues, there’s no thumb on the scale,” said WI Supreme Court candidate Janet Protasiewicz recently, according to the MacIver Institute, “but I will also tell you that I’ll call them as I see them and I’ll tell you what my values are in regard to this particular issue because this issue [abortion] is so critically important.”

So, according to Janet Protasiewicz, “there’s no thumb on the scale”; and yet, she has been quite open about her views and values:

  • “[The state legislative district maps] are rigged, period.  I’m coming right out and saying that.  I don’t think you could sell to any reasonable person that the maps are fair.” Except for the US Supreme Court justices who ruled just last year that Wisconsin’s maps are legally permissible.
  • “Women have, for the last 50 years…relied on the Roe v. Wade case. They’ve relied on it to be able to make their own decisions regarding bodily autonomy,” Protasiewicz said in an interview with WKOW.
  • Said another way in one of her ads: “I believe in a woman’s freedom to make her own decision on abortion. It’s time for a change.”

Despite the fact that Wisconsin’s Code of Judicial Conduct specifically states that “a judge, candidate for judicial office, or judge-elect should not manifest bias or prejudice inappropriate to the judicial office,” Protasiewicz seems to feel quite comfortable in at a minimum, signaling to Wisconsin voters how she intends to rule on cases. And we should pay attention to that because that means she has no true regard for the rule of law.

If Protasiewicz’s stance on major issues weren’t already made clear, here’s what she said just last month on WKOW’s Capital City Sunday:

  • “In regard to the progressive label, I embrace that when it comes to issues such as gerrymandering, when we talk about the maps, when we talk about marriage equality, when we talk about women’s rights and women’s rights to choose.”

There’s no mistaking how Protasiewicz would rule on major cases affecting life, marriage, and elections in Wisconsin—cases that could alter the future of Wisconsin for at least the next decade.

Now, contrast that with what Justice Dan Kelly, Protasiewicz’s opponent in the April 4 election, said in a recent PBS Wisconsin interview:

“…if you think as a candidate that you should be virtue signaling to attract the votes of a certain body of Wisconsinites, what you’re telling them is that you are not — you are not committed to the constitutional order, and you’re telling them that the politics should have a role in the court, even if you don’t intend to follow through on that, what you’re telling the voters is that it should have a role, and I think that’s extraordinarily problematic because when people come in to this room so that the court can hear their case, what people of Wisconsin want to know, with absolute certainty, is that everyone on that bench is going to follow the law.”

The difference in judicial approach is pretty clear.

The April 4 election for the WI Supreme Court is one of the most consequential elections in modern Wisconsin history—and the nation is watching because what happens here in this election has national ramifications.

We urge you to please share this blog far and wide with your neighbors, friends, and family and ask them to pass it on, too. 

You can also share this helpful handout that details what else you can do to impact the April 4 election and provides important dates and deadlines for voting.

Help ensure the future of Wisconsin by spreading the word about what’s at stake on April 4!

The results are in – here’s how the WI Supreme Court primary race played out

The results are in – here’s how the WI Supreme Court primary race played out

A pivotal election took place in Wisconsin on Tuesday. This race has garnered nationwide attention and involvement because the balance of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is at stake. Will it remain conservative or flip to liberal?

The race, which the New York Times calls “the most consequential American election on the 2023 calendar,” is expected to be the most expensive judicial election in American history. Over $8.7 million has already been spent on advertising.

While four candidates were on the ballot, voters voted for only one. The top two candidates move on to the general election in April. Two candidates leaned liberal—Janet Protasiewicz and Everett Mitchell—and two leaned conservative—Daniel Kelly and Jennifer Dorow. The winner of the race will serve a 10-year term. 

Read more…

Gather Signatures!

Between now and June 1, candidates for congress, assembly and senate need to get signatures for their nomination papers. Vote Right Wisconsin has put together a list of candidates that need your assistance with getting signatures to get on the ballot for this fall’s election.

  1. Download the official nomination paper for your candidate of choice and fill out the bottom portion of the paper with your “circulator” information.
  2. GET SIGNATURES of those who support your candidate!
  3. Return paper(s) to address noted on website/paper NO LATER THAN Wednesday, May 27, in order to allow your candidate to have them turned in to the Wisconsin Elections Commission by the June 1, 2020 deadline.

NOTE: Nomination papers do NOT need to have 10 signatures in order to be tallied. They can have anywhere from 1-10 signatures, and every single one counts!

To find your Wisconsin Congressional District, State Senate District, and Assembly District, click here and enter your address.

Congressman Bryan Steil – 1st Congressional District

Peter Theron – 2nd Congressional District

Derrick Van Orden (Endorsed by 3rd Congressional District GOP Caucus) – 3rd Congressional District

Tim Rogers (Primary) – 4th Congressional District

Cindy Werner (Primary) – 4th Congressional District

Scott Fitzgerald (Endorsed by 5th Congressional District GOP Caucus) – 5th Congressional District

Congressman Glenn Grothman – 6th Congressional District

Tom Tiffany – 7th Congressional District

Congressman Mike Gallagher – 8th Congressional District

Cherie Link (Primary) – 10th Senate District

Rob Stafsholt (Primary) – 10th Senate District

Joan Ballweg – 14th Senate District

Sen. Duey Stroebel – 20th Senate District

Sen. Patrick Testin – 24th Senate District

Sen. David Craig – 28th Senate District

Eric Wimberger – 30th Senate District

Dan Kapanke – 32nd Senate District

Rep. Shae Sortwell – 2nd Assembly District

Rep. Ron Tusler – 3rd Assembly District

Aaron McClendon – 10th Assembly District

Orlando Owens – 11th Assembly District

Ozell Cox – 12th Assembly District

Rep. Rob Hutton – 13th Assembly District

Linda Boucher (Primary) – 14th Assembly District

Bonnie Lee (Primary) – 14th Assembly District

Rep. Joe Sanfelippo – 15th Assembly District

Rep. Jessie Rodriguez – 21st Assembly District

Rep. Janel Brandtjen – 22nd Assembly District

Rep. Jim Ott – 23rd Assembly District

Rep. Dan Knodl – 24th Assembly District

Rep. Paul Tittl – 25th Assembly District 

Rep. Terry Katsma – 26th Assembly District

Rep. Gae Magnafici – 28th Assembly District

Rep. Shannon Zimmerman – 30th Assembly District

Rep. Cody Horlacher – 33rd Assembly District

Rep. Rob Swearingen – 34th Assembly District

Calvin Callahan (Primary) – 35th Assembly District

Rep. John Jagler – 37th Assembly District

Rep. Barbara Dittrich – 38th Assembly District

Rep. Kevin Petersen – 40th Assembly District

Rep. Jon Plumer – 42nd Assembly District

Beth Drew – 43rd Assembly District

Terry Lyon – 46th Assembly District

Rep. Tony Kurtz – 50th Assembly District

Rep. Jeremy Thiesfeldt – 52nd Assembly District

Rep. Michael Schraa – 53rd Assembly District

Rachel Cabral-Guevara – 55th Assembly District (Primary)

Rep. Dave Murphy – 56th Assembly District

Eric Beach – 57th Assembly District

Rep. Rick Gundrum – 58th Assembly District

Rep. Timothy Ramthun – 59th Assembly District

Rep. Robert Brooks – 60th Assembly District

Rep. Robert Wittke – 62nd Assembly District

Crystal Miller – 65th Assembly District

Rep. Rob Summerfield – 67th Assembly District

Rep. Jesse James – 68th Assembly District

Rep. Nancy Lynn Vandermeer – 70th Assembly District

Rep. Scott Krug – 72nd Assembly District

James Bolen – 74th Assembly District

David Armstrong – 75th Assembly District

Rep. Ken Skowronski – 82nd Assembly District

Rep. Chuck Wichgers – 83rd Assembly District

Rep. Mike Kuglitsch – 84th Assembly District

Rep. James Edming – 87th Assembly District

Rep. John Macco – 88th Assembly District

Drew Kirsteatter – 90th Assembly District

Rep. Treig Pronschinske – 92nd Assembly District

Rep. Loren Oldenburg – 96th Assembly District

Rep. Scott Allen – 97th Assembly District

Rep. Adam Neylon – 98th Assembly District