MADISON - Stark differences are emerging in the views of the candidates hoping to win a 10-year term on the Wisconsin Supreme Court next year.

One candidate deviates from the other two on his views on major recent cases and the three selected dissimilar U.S. justices when asked which one they admired. One chose a liberal icon, one chose a conservative hero and one chose a swing justice known for writing narrow decisions.

Seeking a seat on the state’s high court are Madison attorney Tim Burns, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Rebecca Dallet and Sauk County Circuit Judge Michael Screnock.

A Feb. 20 primary will narrow the field to two candidates. The April 3 election will determine who replaces outgoing Justice Michael Gableman, who is part of the court’s 5-2 conservative majority.

Justices they admire

Burns named former U.S. Justice Thurgood Marshall as the justice he most admires. Marshall was a civil rights activist who won the Brown v. Board of Education school desegregation case before becoming a justice.

“He lived the struggle,” Burns said. “I think living the struggle makes you a great judge.”

He also looks up to Wisconsin Justice Shirley Abrahamson, a liberal who has developed a national reputation in her four decades on the bench.

“She’s not just a Wisconsin institution, she’s a national institution,” Burns said.

Dallet said she admired Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court and a justice who was known for crafting narrow decisions in closely decided cases.

“I’m not saying I would decide the way she would,” Dallet said. “What I admire about her is her ability to take an independent look (at cases).”

For state justices, she named Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who is closely aligned with Abrahamson.

“I think she’s just been someone who has applied the law,” Dallet said of Bradley.

Screnock selected Antonin Scalia, the justice who died last year who has been lionized by conservatives for his view that courts should interpret the U.S. Constitution as it was intended by its authors.

“He articulated a belief that it’s the role of the court to decide cases based on the written law, that it’s critically important that the judiciary — the judicial branch — recognizes that it is one of three co-equal branches of government, that the people have not given the court ultimate authority to do whatever it wants,” Screnock said.

He also spoke highly of former Wisconsin Justice Jon Wilcox, a conservative who served from 1992 to 2007. He said he appreciated that Wilcox saw the importance of completing all legal analysis before reaching any conclusions.

"You don’t decide where you’re going to end and then get there," Screnock said. "You start at the beginning, you do your research and then you go where the law takes you.”

Differences on cases

Act 10. Federal and state courts upheld Act 10, the 2011 law Gov. Scott Walker signed that greatly limited collective bargaining for most public workers.

Burns called the ruling wrong, saying unions and public education are “vital to democracy.”

Said Dallet: “I think they (in the majority) missed the issue. I think we have a freedom to associate and I think penalizing people for doing so can certainly violate that right.”

As an attorney, Screnock helped the state defend itself against the Act 10 lawsuits and labeled a state Supreme Court ruling on the issue as one of the best from the state’s high court in the last 30 years.

Screnock explained those views in his application to Walker to fill a vacancy on the Sauk County bench — an appointment he got in 2015. Screnock praised the state Supreme Court for making a decision in one Act 10 case within a matter of months.

“It is good for the public to know that the judicial system is able to respond, when necessary, in a timely fashion,” Screnock wrote.

Voter ID. Courts have largely upheld Wisconsin’s 2011 voter ID law. Burns and Dallet expressed skepticism toward those views.

“In recent years, (Republicans) tried to make ‘one person, one vote’ the exception rather than the rule and that just isn’t right,” Burns said.

Dallet said she had not looked into the voter ID cases, but added, “I think we should do everything we can to encourage people to vote. We shouldn’t be about power trying to stay in power.”

Screnock said he didn’t know whether the courts had gotten the voter ID cases right.

“I’ve not pondered in an in-depth way the arguments that were made and how those would play against both the constitutional provisions and prior precedent to have an opinion as to whether they got that right or not,” he said.

John Doe. The state Supreme Court in 2015 ended a John Doe investigation prosecutors had been conducting of Walker’s campaign and conservative groups backing him. The court determined there was nothing illegal for prosecutors to investigate because Walker’s campaign and the groups were allowed to work together.

“I would have decided the case very differently,” Burns said, saying he was deeply troubled by the role of money in politics.

Dallet said the court should have allowed the investigation to continue.

“How do you shut down this investigation? Let’s have the investigation,” she said. “We should all care about the coordination of special interests.”

Screnock noted the court found prosecutors could not investigate activities that that are not illegal.

“Do I think that’s an accurate statement of the law? Yeah,” he said.

Redistricting. In 2011, Republicans who control the Legislature drew election maps that greatly favor their party. A panel of federal judges ruled 2-1 last year that the maps were unconstitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court is now reviewing that ruling.

Burns said he was “hugely concerned” about how the maps were drawn.

Said Dallet: “I think they’ve gone too far with partisanship. It’s not just our state. It’s a nonpartisan issue. This should make everyone upset.”

Screnock played a small role with the legal team that helped GOP lawmakers draw the maps. He spoke positively of one legal argument that contends courts should stay out of partisan redistricting cases when mapmakers follow traditional criteria such as drawing compact districts that have equal populations.

“It allows the court to stay out of trying to divine whether political goals or purposes were too heavily involved in the final line-drawing process,” Screnock said.

If the court reached that conclusion, Wisconsin’s maps would likely stand.