MADISON, Wis. (AP) 鈥� There should be no effort to a liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court justice based on what is known now, a former justice advised the Republican legislative leader who asked him to review the issue.
Some Republicans had raised the prospect of impeaching newly elected Justice Janet Protasiewicz if she from a redistricting lawsuit seeking to toss GOP-drawn legislative district boundary maps. On Friday, she declined to recuse herself, and the court voted 4-3 along partisan lines to hear the redistricting challenge.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos had to review the possibility of impeachment. One of those three, David Prosser, sent Vos an email on Friday, seemingly just before Protasiewicz declined to recuse, advising against moving forward with impeachment. That was after a state judiciary disciplinary panel lodged against Protasiewicz that alleged she violated the judicial code of ethics with comments she made during the campaign.
Prosser turned the email over to the liberal watchdog group American Oversight as part of an open records request.
鈥淭o sum up my views, there should be no effort to impeach Justice Protasiewicz on anything we know now,鈥� Prosser wrote to Vos. 鈥淚mpeachment is so serious, severe, and rare that it should not be considered unless the subject has committed a crime, or the subject has committed indisputable 鈥榗orrupt conduct鈥� while 鈥榠n office.鈥�"
Vos on Monday made his first comments about Protasiewicz since she declined to recuse from the case and Vos got the email from Prosser. In his statement, mention impeachment. He did not return text messages Monday or early Tuesday seeking further comment.
Vos raised the threat of impeachment because he argued that Protasiewicz had prejudged the redistricting case when during her campaign she called the current maps 鈥渞igged鈥� and 鈥渦nfair.鈥� Vos also said that her acceptance of nearly $10 million from the Wisconsin Democratic Party would unduly influence her ruling.
Protasiewicz on Friday rejected those arguments, noting that other justices have accepted campaign cash and not recused from cases. She also noted that she never promised or pledged to rule on the redistricting lawsuit in any way.
Other justices, both conservative and liberal, have on issues that could come before the court, although not always during their run for office like Protasiewicz did. Current justices have also from political parties and others with an interest in court cases and haven't recused themselves. But none of them have faced threats of impeachment.
In his email to Vos, Prosser said he did not think Protasiewicz had met the standard for impeachment, which is reserved for 鈥渃orrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors.鈥�
She has not committed a crime or corrupt conduct, Prosser said.
鈥淚n my view, 鈥榗orrupt conduct鈥� is not a term that is open to a mere political grievance,鈥� Prosser wrote. 鈥淚f that were the case, legislative bodies could be trading questionable impeachments with considerable frequency.鈥�
Prosser cautioned that using impeachment to delay or affect the outcome of any single case 鈥渨ill be viewed as unreasonable partisan politics.鈥�
Prosser, a former Republican Assembly speaker, was the only one of the former justices who came forward to say they were on the panel created by Vos. But the records he turned over to American Oversight show that he was also apparently working with former Chief Justice Patience Roggensack on looking at impeachment.
The group has alleging that the panel Vos created is breaking the state open meetings law.
鈥淛ustice Prosser鈥檚 opinion letter demonstrates why Speaker Vos鈥� secret panel needs to operate in public," said Heather Sawyer, American Oversight's executive director, in a statement. "We still don鈥檛 know everyone involved or what other work has been done, and will keep pressing to ensure that the people of Wisconsin have full transparency and accountability regarding the Speaker鈥檚 impeachment plans.鈥�
Vos formation of the impeachment review panel on Sept. 13. Vos refused to say who he asked and Prosser also would not tell a judge when asked during a court hearing on the American Oversight lawsuit last month.
Text messages from Roggensack to Prosser on Sept. 14 show her asking if Prosser is free for a meeting. Prosser also released a voicemail from Roggensack left that same day referring to the text and asking to speak with him on 鈥渁 matter that I thought we were going to look at together.鈥�
Prosser, during that Sept. 29 hearing, denied the claim made by American Oversight that the panel was a governmental body subject to the state鈥檚 open meetings law.
In a voicemail he released from Roggensack from Oct. 2, Roggensack says she wants to talk with him about why 鈥渨e, whatever we are, are not a governmental body.鈥�
Scott Bauer, The Associated Press
