Ziegler can't seem to sit out enough cases now

[undeterred]

Justice Annette Ziegler was elected last year to the state Supreme Court under an ethical cloud for not recusing herself as a circuit judge from cases in which she had a conflict of interest.

She has since changed her ways.

A review of court proceedings since Nov. 30, when Ziegler took her seat on the bench, shows that Ziegler has declined to participate in 25 proceedings. That's almost as many recusals as the 29 taken by all the other six justices combined.

The records show that Ziegler has not participated in eight of 47 published opinions or dispositional orders, while five of the other six justices sat out on a total of 10 such cases. Justice Pat Roggensack participated in all these decisions. Justice Louis Butler came closest to Ziegler in terms of recusals on these cases, sitting out three rulings.

In about 400 proceedings during which the court decided whether to take a case, Ziegler recused herself 17 times. The other six justices sat out a total of 19 of these cases, with Justice Ann Walsh Bradley recusing herself from six.

Ziegler was elected last year amid allegations that, as a judge in Washington County, she ruled on cases involving West Bend Savings Bank, where her husband was a paid director.

A Judicial Commission decided that Ziegler should have recused herself from 11 cases or disclosed her possible conflicts of interest, and her colleagues on the Supreme Court last month handed her a public reprimand, the first time the court has ever disciplined one of its own.

The written decision to reprimand Ziegler noted that Ziegler "took prompt steps to prevent a recurrence," including making "arrangements with the Supreme Court commissioners to ensure that no case materials be transmitted to her in any case involving the bank so long as her husband is serving on the bank's board of directors."

She also settled a case with the Wisconsin Ethics Board for $17,000, including a $5,000 fine and legal fees of $12,000.

Court officials would not comment on Ziegler's relatively high rate of non-participation, and court spokesman Tom Sheehan said justices are not obligated to disclose their reasons for not participating on a case.

Court observers, legal analysts and good government watchdog groups, however, have raised concerns that record amounts of cash raised and spent in Supreme Court races by candidates and outside groups will lead to more recusals. Last year the Supreme Court justices, themselves, responded to such concerns by issuing a call for the public financing of Supreme Court campaigns.

At least two of the cases Ziegler recused herself from involved contributors to her campaign: the law firm Foley & Lardner and the Wisconsin Realtors Association.

Ziegler's campaign raised $1.45 million during last year's bitter campaign, and outside groups, most prominently Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, invested millions in a media campaign to get her elected.

Former Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske said the increasing amounts of money spent on campaigns that get more bitter every year is likely to hurt the court's image.

"Regardless of what's happening, the public is going to perceive things by virtue of where votes are and what the ugliness of the campaign looked like, and I am concerned about that," she said. "And frankly, the more nasty and political the races get, the harder it is for justices to sit on cases."

Steven Elbow — 6/11/2008 4:50 pm
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/290723

[goofticket]

1. Recall the justices that cannot vote

There is no reason to have justices that cannot hear, a minimum of cases.
Zeiger is pushing 20% of all cases.
This is unacceptable.
We must have a recall election to remove her, and a law preventing any judge, at any level from recusal of more than 5% of cases.

Do we get a 20% refund on her salary?

She certainly has time to go speak to pro-WMC groups, campaign for Republicans and do all sorts of other non-judical activities, at our expense.

[LiberalFighter]

2. Yes. What is the point of her being a justice if she can't participate ethically?