Daily Cardinal: Why should students vote for you for a 10-year term on the Supreme Court?
Louis Butler: I have the experience, impartiality, and integrity that Wisconsin both needs and deserves on its high court. I have spent the last 15 years of my life as a judge - o longer than my opponent has even been an attorney - o with the last four years of my career spent as a Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court is an appellate position, and before taking my seat on its bench, I spent nine years as an appellate lawyer and argued more than 20 cases before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I was also the first public defender in Wisconsin history to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court. If my opponent has any appellate experience, I'm not aware of it. But I have found my past appellate experience invaluable in doing my current job. I have taught at Marquette Law School, and have served as a faculty member for the past decade at the National Judicial College, where I've taught judges from across the nation and around the world how to be judges.
I also started my career as a public defender, representing the poorest citizens, because I believe in our judicial system. Unfortunately, my opponent has criticized me for this work. He is vying for a seat on our state's highest court, but doesn't seem to believe in one of the most basic tenets of our judiciary. This isn't just me saying this - o the Dodge County District Attorney who previously supported my opponent rescinded his endorsement, saying, \As a prosecutor, I believe in convicting and properly punishing criminals, but I have a duty to be certain that a defendant is actually guilty. A competent criminal defense attorney helps me be accurate."" That DA, Steve Bauer, says he is troubled that my opponent would ""belittle our constitutional right to counsel."" And the Appleton Post Crescent, endorsed me partly because my opponent ""seems to have disdain for public defenders'¦diminishing the fact that defense attorneys are a vital component in our justice system."" Finally, I have conducted this campaign with a dignity befitting the state's highest court. My opponent has been roundly criticized by media outlets throughout the state, elected officials, and a former Supreme Court justice, for running a ""misleading,"" ""offensive"" campaign that seeks to ""dupe voters."" He has refused to sign a clean campaign pledge that would bind us to the Code of Judicial Conduct. I signed this pledge and have lived by it throughout this campaign. And I have asked all third-party groups to stand aside with their attack ads and let voters hear directly from the candidates. I have run only a positive and honest campaign that is focused on the issues in order to help voters make an educated decision on April 1st. But don't take my word for it. I encourage students to examine the difference between my opponent and me in records and experience. I encourage them to look closely at how we've conducted our respective campaigns - o as I have run a totally positive campaign focused on the issues, just as a race for our state's highest court should be run. And I hope they examine the endorsements of all of the major newspapers in this state - o the Appleton Post Crescent, Green Bay Press Gazette, La Crosse Tribune, Capital Times, Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Superior Daily Telegram, Wausau Daily Herald, Shepherd Express, Isthmus, Sheboygan Press, and Janesville Gazette - o all that have recommended me to return to a seat on the Supreme Court. And I hope that after that, they will see, too, that I am the right choice for our state's highest court.
DC: What experiences or qualifications do you think qualify you to serve?
LB: The Supreme Court is an appellate court, and I practiced appellate law for more than 13 years. I argued nearly two dozen cases before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and was the first public defender in Wisconsin history to argue before the U.S. Supreme court.
In addition, I served as a judge in Milwaukee's busiest municipal and circuit courts for more than a decade, and have been on the Wisconsin Supreme Court for the past four years. I've been a judge longer than my opponent has been an attorney. I'm not coming to this job to learn it, I've been doing it - o and doing a good job on an outstanding court - o for the past four years. In fact, a recent study ranked Wisconsin's Supreme Court as one of the top ten courts in the country. I'm proud of that, I'm proud of the work I've done with my colleagues on the court, and I hope that voters return me to doing this work that I love on April 1st.
DC: What is your opinion on the level of money spent by interest groups in the race?
LB: From the very beginning of this race, I asked that these deep-pocketed third party groups please step aside and let the voters hear from us - o the candidates - o directly. I have called for all third party ads to come down, even those that ostensibly are trying to help me. And I have never repeated the allegations these ads have made against my opponent, because that was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, my opponent has not done this. He has said that he ""wishes the special interest groups would take their interests elsewhere,"" but that is all he has done is ""wished."" He has made a habit out of repeating the allegations these third party groups have made against me, whether they are true or not. This isn't the way we should be running a race for our state's highest court. That's why I, along with every other member of our state Supreme Court, signed a letter supporting the idea of meaningful, realistic finance reform. We saw a nasty race last year, and this year's race has reached a new low for judicial elections in the state. The system is clearly broken, and I hope that on Tuesday, the voters of this state say, ""enough is enough"" with their votes for the only candidate who has decried this third party involvement from the very beginning.
DC: How would you describe the nature of the television advertisements shown throughout the race?
LB: The ads in this race have reached a new low in judicial elections, and that's part of the reason I've called for all third-party ads to come down. But I encourage voters to ignore the third-party ads and, instead, take a close look at the ads that I've run and compare them to the ads my opponent has run. I believe that when voters do this, they will see a stark contrast between the way we've run this race, and the decisions we've made in it.
I have run only positive ads focused on my experience, endorsements, and past decisions. My opponent, however, ran an ad that was so inflammatory, so vile, that Newsweek called it ""grounds for outrage,"" the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said it was ""purposeful distortion"" and ""unfit for any campaign"" and called for my opponent to take it down. The NAACP called it ""racist"" and other outlets have said it amounts to ""race baiting."" Former Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske said it was ""a new low"" in Wisconsin Judicial elections, and Dodge County District Attorney Steven Bauer, who had previously publicly supported my opponent rescinded that endorsement, saying that Gableman's ad ""violated the Code of Judicial Conduct,"" made him ""unfit"" for a seat on the Supreme Court, was ""revolting"" and ""undermined the entire justice system."" Yet, my opponent - o a sitting judge who is vying for a seat on our state's highest court - o has stood by this ad. This, to me, is incomprehensible. This race should be based on our experience and issues, not on distorting your opponent's record to win at any cost.
DC: Do you feel your election would affect the ideological balance of the Supreme Court?
LB: This election is one of the most important Wisconsin will see this year. The integrity of our judicial system is at stake, and I hope that voters stand up on April 1st and vote their conscience. I hope that they will say that they've had enough of these shadowy third-party groups and enough of the negativity we've seen from my opponent.
However, much is made about the ""ideological balance"" of the court without looking at the data supporting how we actually vote. Most of the reporting on the court goes something like this: there's three to the left, three to the right, and oh my goodness, ""Where's Justice Crooks?"" But our voting patters don't support that assessment. For example, many people are surprised to learn that I vote in the majority second-most - o 85% -- of all seven justices. A recent study also found the Wisconsin Supreme Court is one of the top ten most followed courts in the nation, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ranked Wisconsin's litigation climate as one of the top ten in the country as well. These statistics just go to prove what we've known for some time - o that our Supreme Court is doing a great job, and I'm proud of the work I've contributed during my years on the court.
