Advertisement
A fellow circuit judge, David Resheske, will administer the oath, and a small reception will follow in the jury room.
The restrained approach isn’t unusual — new justices often wait until the Supreme Court is back in session in September for grander ceremonies — yet this time the subdued nature of the affair may be particularly apt.
Ziegler will begin her 10-year term with an ethics complaint pending against her before the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, the state body that investigates possible misconduct by judges. Legal observers say the situation is uncommon if not unprecedented for an incoming justice.
The awkwardness doesn’t stop there. If serious misconduct is found, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will determine the appropriate sanction, meaning Ziegler’s colleagues could be called upon to penalize her.
“It puts them in the position of saying, ‘Welcome! Now we’re going to smack you in the face as our welcoming gesture,’” said Charles Geyh, a professor at Indiana University School of Law in Bloomington and co-author of “Judicial Conduct and Ethics.”
The issue
The complaint against Ziegler, filed March 19 by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, alleges she presided over cases as a circuit judge in which she or her husband had a significant financial or business relationship with one of the parties.
The judicial commission has confirmed receipt of the complaint but otherwise has not commented on its status. Last week, executive director James Alexander would say only that the complaint will not be resolved before Ziegler takes office.
Ziegler was on vacation much of last week and unavailable for comment.
In May, she settled a similar complaint with the Wisconsin Ethics Board by acknowledging that she had violated the state’s conflict-of-interest law. She paid $17,000 in penalties.
The allegations surfaced before the April 3 election, and Ziegler and her opponent, Linda Clifford, tussled over the charges at debates and in campaign ads. The election was the most expensive ever for a Supreme Court race, with an estimated $5.8 million spent by candidates and groups.
Ziegler won with 58 percent of the vote, a fact that shouldn’t be lost, her supporters say.
“That’s a mandate. That’s a landslide,” said Jim Pugh, spokesman for Wisconsin Manufacturing & Commerce, a business group that spent millions of dollars backing Ziegler in the race. “The people have spoken. They were aware of these issues when they went into the voting booth.“
The matter will be resolved, and Ziegler will go on to be “a great Supreme Court justice,” Pugh said.
“Clearly, everyone who has looked at this has said that none of her actions benefited her personally or her family,” he said.
Lingering concerns
Others are not convinced the matter can be so easily put to rest.
“My immediate instinct is to say, ‘Boy, I would not want a judge coming in who has basically said that she decided cases in which her husband’s company was a party,’” said Geyh, the law professor. “That’s been grounds for disqualification (from cases) since ancient times. Everybody knows you don’t do that.”
It is not highly unusual for justices to be the subjects of disciplinary probes, Geyh said. Earlier this month, the New Jersey Supreme Court censured one of its members for appearing to use his judicial office to seek preferential treatment for his teenage son in a dispute with a high school football teammate.
What makes the Ziegler case different is that often the allegations involve “junior-varsity kind of infractions,” while those pending against Ziegler are more serious, Geyh said.
Janine Geske, a former Supreme Court justice who is now a Marquette University law professor, said many justices have had complaints lodged against them — it’s the nature of the profession. However, most don’t go anywhere, she said.
“I suspect this one is going to go forward in a way that the others have not,” Geske said.
Mike McCabe, director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, said he will be “dumbfounded” if the judicial commission doesn’t find a violation. He said it is unfortunate that the commission will not be able to resolve the issue before Ziegler takes office.
“It leaves her in a position of joining the court with a cloud hanging over her, and it puts her colleagues on the court in a very uncomfortable position, to say the least.”
The case at a glance
The complaint
On March 19, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign asked the Wisconsin Judicial Commission to investigate whether Annette Ziegler, a Washington County circuit judge and Supreme Court candidate at the time, violated the judicial code of conduct by handling cases in which she or her husband had a significant financial or business relationship with one of the parties.
The democracy campaign, a nonpartisan watchdog group based in Madison, cited nine cases handled by Ziegler involving banks or businesses in which she owned $50,000 or more of stock. It also cited seven other cases involving West Bend Savings Bank, which paid Ziegler’s husband for being a member of its board and for renting space he owns to the bank. Also, Ziegler had received a multimillion-dollar loan from the bank.
The process
Once a complaint is filed, the judicial commission does a preliminary evaluation. A majority of complaints are dismissed at this review stage.
If not dismissed, the commission authorizes an investigation in which it can subpoena witnesses and documents. The defendant can respond to the allegations in writing and at a closed commission meeting.
The commission votes to either refer the issue back for more investigation, dismiss it or file a formal complaint with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then determines the appropriate sanction or other disposition.
Doug Erickson is a reporter with the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison.
