Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman being vetted for Trump job

MADISON - State Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman is being considered for a federal job in a move that would give Gov. Scott Walker the chance to appoint his successor just before next year’s court election.

President Donald Trump’s administration is vetting Gableman for a position, according to multiple sources. Two of them said the FBI had recently interviewed people who have worked with the conservative jurist.

It was unclear what job Gableman is in line for. Sources said it was an administrative position, not a federal judgeship.

A White House spokesman declined to comment, saying the administration does not comment on appointments until they are officially made.

Gableman, who declined to comment for this story, in June announced he would not seek a second 10-year term on the court.

RELATED: Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman will not seek second term

Those familiar with Walker’s thinking said if Gableman gets an appointment, the GOP governor is leaning toward appointing Sauk County Judge Michael Screnock to finish the term.

Screnock is running for Gableman’s seat and an appointment would give him a leg up because he could campaign as a sitting justice. A spokesman for Walker did not respond to a request for comment.

RELATED: Sauk County judge with ties to Gov. Scott Walker running for Wisconsin Supreme Court

As a lawyer, Screnock worked on developing Republican-friendly election maps for the Legislature that the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing. In legal challenges, Screnock also helped defend Act 10, the law Walker signed in 2011 that eliminated most collective bargaining for most public workers.

RELATED: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Wisconsin's redistricting case but blocks redrawing of maps

ARCHIVE: Republican National Committee got preview of legislative maps

Also running for Gableman’s seat are Madison attorney Tim Burns and Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Rebecca Dallet. Both have courted Democrats in the early stages of the race and they reacted strongly to Wednesday's news.

"This is what we've come to expect from Governor Walker," Burns said in a statement. "He cynically abuses his power to rig our democracy and keep the court at his bidding. Voters be damned."

"Could there be any clearer indication that this court is infected by partisan politics?" Dallet campaign manager Jessica Lovejoy said in a statement. "Judge Dallet is running to make the Supreme Court fair, impartial and independent, and we are confident that's what the voters will choose in the spring election."

Screnock spokesman Nathan Conrad said Screnock had not spoken with anyone in the Walker administration about the matter and was unaware of Gableman's potential appointment. If Gableman leaves early, Screnock will likely apply to get appointed to the court heading into the election, Conrad said.

Gableman is part of a 5-2 conservative majority on the court and the appointment of Screnock or another conservative would not change its ideological makeup. Liberals hope to chip into the conservative majority in next year’s election.

Gableman won his seat in 2008, becoming the first challenger to unseat a justice — in this case, Louis Butler — in more than 40 years. Before joining the high court, Gableman served as a Burnett County Circuit Court judge and Ashland County district attorney.

Gableman was in the majority in a pair of 2014 cases that upheld Wisconsin’s voter ID law and wrote the lead opinion that upheld Act 10, which greatly limited the power of labor unions representing government workers.

He was also the lead author of a 2015 decision that ended a John Doe investigation into Walker’s campaign.

ARCHIVE: State Supreme Court deadlocks on Gableman's ethics case

Shortly after joining the court in 2008, Gableman faced charges from the state’s Judicial Commission, which concluded he had lied in a campaign ad that described a case Butler handled as a public defender. The state Supreme Court split 3-3 in 2010 on whether Gableman had violated ethical rules for judges with the ad.