The 1983 Wisconsin Supreme Court election was held on April 5, 1983, and saw the election of State Senator William A. Bablitch to succeed retiring incumbent Bruce F. Beilfuss as justice.
As an incumbent state legislator without prior judicial experience, Bablitch sought to frame his background as a positive attribute. He argued that, because three-quarters of the court's cases dealt with questions of legislative intent, his background added a needed perspective that was missing from the court. He further argued that his legislative experience had exposed him to nearly any matter that could imaginably come before the court. Additionally, he asserted that his being an outsider of the state court system was a virtue, arguing the court's membership already had an excess number of former state trial judges. His general election opponent opponent, Gordon Myse (an eleven year veteran of a Wisconsin circuit court), unsuccessfully asserted that Bablitch's lack of judicial experience made him less qualified.
Ahead of the primary, Myse was endorsed by 93% of incumbent Wisconsin state lower court judges. Bablitch and the third candidate in the race, Trayton L. Lathrop, both turned this endorsement into a liability for Myse by alleging that it was unethical of him to receive such endorsements from fellow judges.
Bablitch won a wide victory over Myse in the general election. However, Myse did manage to perform strongly in the Fox Valley region from which he hailed.
Background The 1983 election was for a ten-year term, succeeding retiring justice Bruce F. Beilfuss. With the preceding 1980 election also having been for an open seat, this marked the third instance in the court's history in which multiple consecutive elections were for open seats (elections without an incumbent running).
The election was the only statewide race in the Spring 1983 Wisconsin elections. No statewide ballot measures were on the primary ballot, making the race the sole statewide ballot item in the spring primaries. It did coincide with primaries for various Circuit Court judgeships, local school boards, municipal offices, as well as two special elections for Wisconsin Senate seats. Municipalities that held mayoral primaries and general elections coinciding with the election included Madison and Green Bay. Only 14% of eligible voters cast a vote in the primary.
In addition to the general elections of aforementioned down ballot races, the Supreme Court general election also coincided with a statewide referendum on whether voters would support a high-level radioactive waste disposal state being constructed in Wisconsin.
Primary election
Candidates
Advanced to general election William A. Bablitch, President pro-tempore of the Wisconsin Senate (1983) and former Senate majority leader (1976–1982) from the 24th district (1973–1983), former district attorney of Portage County (1969–1973) Gordon Myse, judge of the Wisconsin Circuit Court of Outagamie County
Eliminated in the primary Trayton L. Lathrop, Madison-based attorney, candidate for Supreme Court in 1977
Primary campaign
Ideology and political affiliations of candidates Outgoing justice Beilfuss was regarded to be a swing vote on the court.
While the race was officially nonpartisan, Bablitch and Myse both had histories as members of the Democratic Party. Bablitch had been a registered Democrat prior to becoming a judge, while Bablitch was an incumbent Democratic member of the Wisconsin Senate. Bablitch was considered ideologically liberal.
Lathrop criticized both Myse and Bablitch as being "judicial activists", and characterized himself as a strict constructionist. He argued that both his opponents had advocated the use of the court to "change outmoded laws" and bring about reforms that should be done legislatively. Lathrop argued, "a court should apply the law as written, uninfluenced by political, social, or economic beliefs. It should not change the law or bend the law." He was, in turn, criticized by both of his opponents as too "extreme" and overly "rigid".
Bablitch disagreed with Lathrop's characterization of him as "activist", and responded, "The unfortunate thing is that most people equate the word "activist" with liberalism, when in fact the history of the court has been replete with examples where the activists have been ultra-conservatives." Bablitch further argued that while courts generally needed to restrain themselves to strict interpretation of the law rather than imposing their own judgement against the judgement of a legislature, that rulings have occasionally needed to go beyond such restraints. He argued that without courts occasioning themselves to go beyond such narrow restrictions, "separate but equal would still be in effect; child labor laws and equal rights for women would not have been enacted."
Myse noted that he could agree with Lathrop that there was necessity for the law to be "predictable and stable," he disagreed with the notion that the law should never change unless the legislature acted to change it. Remarking, "no one in the judicial community that I am aware regards me as a wild-eyed activist,” Myse argued, "I suggest that the great art of judging is to be able to achieve measured and restrained growth in the law so it can address the problems in a relevant way in our complex so ciety, while at the same time having stability and predictability." Myse opined that, "law must be a living thing, relevant to the needs of contemporary society...with restraint, the law must change when required."
Campaign Bablitch's campaign Bablitch resigned as majority leader of the Wisconsin Senate in 1982 in order to launch his campaign for the court. He would tout that he had sought to avoid partisan campaigning after this, as he was now pursuing a nonpartisan office. He characterized his judicial campaign as being a "bipartisan effort".
Bablitch was aiming to become the very first incumbent legislator to win election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He was the first incumbent state legislator to run for the court since 1974, when Raymond C. Johnson (the then-incumbent Senate majority leader) unsuccessfully ran.
Bablitch framed his legislative background as a core positive, arguing that the court (which, at the time, lacked a justice which such experience) needed a justice with a legislative background. He noted that three-quarters of the court's opinions involved analyses pertaining to legislative intent. He touted his legislative background as bringing him a wealth of experiential knowledge that would help inform the court in better addressing questions relating to legislative intent. He also argued that legislative voting record provided voters with a far more thorough account of ideological stances than his opponent's judicial career could provide, remarking,
Bablitch also touted his negotiation experiences in the legislature as giving him practice at dealing with, "incredibly diverse personalities," and making him well-prepared to "be collegial" towards litigants appearing before the court. Myse, however, would counter this argument by arguing, "compromise is fine in the legislative arena, but those are not the processes used in the judicial system."
Bablitch argued that it would be a positive for his experience as a legislature to, "greatly assist the court in bridging the gap between the gap between the Legislature and the two other branches of government." He also argued that the court already had an "overbalance" of justices with trial court backgrounds, and that the election instead of a legislator would help create what he dubbed "a balanced court". He further asserted that those who spent their careers as judges too frequently disregarded the actual intent of the Wisconsin Legislature and instead interpreted the law in a matter tailored to suit their own desired outcomes. Bablitch criticized the court as holding power "unequaled by the other two branches [of the state government]" that should be restrained by the judges ceasing to impose their own "judgement on questions of social policy," and instead acting to enforce, "that of the Legislature." He argued that the Wisconsin Supreme Court had recently "gone out of its way" to substitute its own personal opinion over legislative intent, and opined "it is not the role of a justice to substitute his or her values for those of the executive or legislative branches."
Bablitch framed himself as a break from the conventional mold of a justice, highlighting this a point of contrast between himself and Myse (who fit that mold). He later remarked in his general election victory speech, "Myse appealed to all the stereotypes. I had to define the role of the Supreme Court as an entirely different court from the lower courts," declaring that in his campaign he had successfully framed the Supreme Court as an "issues court". During the campaign, Bablitch also argued that, while (compared to his opponents) he lacked in endorsements from judges and lawyers, this did not matter because the legal profession did not have a rightful monopoly on the courts; rather, "the court. belong to the people." Bablitch, an attorney-turned-legislator, argued the election of a legislator was necessary to break the legal profession's effective monopoly on the court. He argued that instead of being a limited club for former trial court judges, the court needed to become, "a mosaic representing a broad cross-section of experiences so that the different perspectives and insights can be brought into resolving the issues that it needs to decide." Bablitch leveraged connections he had made in his fourteen year career as a politician in order to build what was characterized as a people-oriented campaign.
Bablitch agreed with Myse on the need for the Supreme Court to play a greater role in administrating the Circuit Court system, however he disagreed with Myse on the specifics of how this should be accomplished. Bablitch believed that the Supreme Court had not been strict enough in administering the Circuit Courts, and argued that it should use computers to keep track of the caseloads handled by Circuit Court judges and discipline judges who were falling behind in addressing their caseload. Bablitch argued there was too severe a case backlog in the Circuit Courts, and that this would be an effective means of addressing it. He argued that an important way to decrease the backload would be for the state's court system to, "[encourage more] people to find alternative methods [to trials] of settling disputes."
A key issue Bablitch that highlighted as something he would continue his work on was sentencing reform. He had thrice tried unsuccessfully as a state senator to pass mandatory minimum sentences for select offenses. He argued that, amidst the failure of the legislature to pass statutory mandatory sentencing minimums, that it was imperative for the Supreme Court to expand use of its own authority to create sentencing guidelines. He cited sentencing guidelines piloted in Racine County the previous year as something worth expanding upon. He especially believed that such guidelines should be imposed for violent crimes and other crimes involving the use of a weapon. On removing judicial discretion on sentencing from Circuit Court justices, Bablitch argued, "I think some discretion ought to be taken away from them. I think the public is appalled –on a daily basis– and right so, at some of the [lax] sentences [imposed by Circuit Court justices]."
Myse's campaign