× Expand Rebecca Dallet

On Tuesday, April 3, Wisconsin citizens will elect a new State Supreme Court Justice in the Wisconsin General Election.

Why are you running for State Supreme Court?

We are in a moment in time right now where our rights are under attack, and we’ve got a broken supreme court. What we need is someone to step up and repair that court, someone who has the values and the experience to do that, and I have been working in our courts for more than 20 years—as a judge for the last decade. Before that, I was a prosecutor fighting for those rights, and I want to keep that up on our Wisconsin Supreme Court.

You refer to the Wisconsin Supreme Court as being “broken.” Why or how?

We have had special interest money pouring into our state in the races for supreme court to buy justices. This has been going on for at least the past decade. We’ve seen decisions that reflect the interests of those special interest groups, and that is not what Wisconsin is about. We need a court that is fair and independent, not justices who are just going to do the bidding of the special interest groups. The same thing is happening in this race. So far, my opponent received close to $1 million dollars in special interest money. That was just in the primary alone.

This is going to be a thin election in terms of the ballot. The Wisconsin Supreme Court election may be the only major, or in some places, only contested race on the ballot. Why should people take time out of their day to vote?

People should realize how important our supreme court is, that the court is the check on the other two branches. When the legislature or our governor does something that’s against the Constitution, it is our job as judges and justices to uphold those rights. It’s such an important job—especially when we’ve had a supreme court that’s just been doing the bidding of politics and not looking out for the people. We’ve seen some of the results in the decisions that have come down from our court in the last decade. People can make a change. They can get out and vote and restore confidence in the court and have a court that’s looking out for people.

Friends of the Shepherd Help support Milwaukee's locally owned free weekly newspaper. LEARN MORE

Do you have an example of one of the more egregious things the Wisconsin Supreme Court has done that makes you say to yourself, “This is why I’m going to run”?

The John Doe case is really one of the reasons why I decided to run. It’s a case that is an example of that special interest money pouring in. In that case, $2.25 million dollars was spent by the State Chamber [Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC)] to elect Justice Michael Gableman. The State Chamber then wrote the rule that said that Justice Gableman could sit on a case involving the Chamber despite their massive contribution.

He refused to step off the case, and then he, along with the majority, ruled to shut down an investigation into coordination of politics with that special interest money. It was an investigation brought by both Democrats and Republicans in the best interest of our state, and he shut it down. As a former prosecutor, I can tell you it’s unheard of to shut down an investigation the way that they did. It was clearly a decision driven by the interest money that had bought the court.

Do you think there should be some kind of objective standards for recusal that are enforced on supreme court justices—rather than the current situation in which the justices themselves can decide whether or not to recuse themselves, even in cases where their campaign donors are before the court?

Yes, I do. The current rule says justices can sit on cases even when millions of dollars are spent to help elect them by parties sitting in front of them. That doesn’t look fair to anyone. It doesn’t look like the justice can remain unbiased. What we need is a strong rule that everyone understands. It should be something that we all have a say in and that we have a hearing to talk about so that people will know and understand that the court is going to be fair, and that they can have confidence in its decisions.

How do you contrast yourself with your opponent, Michael Screnock, in terms of career experience?

As far as career goes, I’m the only candidate who’s worked on behalf of the people of our state for more than 20 years in our Wisconsin courtrooms, doing the work every day as a prosecutor, standing up for victims and making sure rights are protected; and then as a judge for a decade upholding the law and empowering women, making sure the vulnerable are heard.

I’ve been hearing the stories and being in touch with what is facing everyday Wisconsinites. For example, I’ve been hearing the stories of how the opioid crisis has impacted their lives. I had a case that we’ve shared some of the details of that involved a girl who was killed taking opioids in my neighborhood, and her body was left on a driveway instead of getting her help.

I’m in civil court now, and I’ve seen the day-to-day impact of the economy on people’s lives, their inability to pay their health insurance and losing their homes. It’s that day-to-day experience—that decision-making in close to 12,000 cases—that I’ve worked on and handled. I’m the only one who’s had that experience.

As far as my opponent’s experience goes, he is a fairly recent graduate of law school. I was preparing to run for judge when he was graduating from law school. He worked on behalf of our governor, on behalf of the Republican Party and the rigged maps and gerrymandering, and then he was appointed by our governor just a few years ago to be a judge in Sauk County.

A question about a specific area of your experience: You’ve worked extensively to educate judges nationwide about how to handle the issue of domestic violence. What are one or two insights you’ve gained about addressing this issue?

I’ve worked as both a prosecutor—prosecuting domestic violence and sexual predator cases—and then as a judge—presiding over our domestic violence courts for more than three years. I teach judges all over the country to help them to understand the dynamics that come with those cases: the dynamics of power and control and the use of that over a victim. It’s economic control, it’s control over children, it’s control over all areas.

As a judge, it’s important to allow victims to come forward and tell their stories when they can and how they can. It’s very difficult for victims to tell their story even when they’re ready to do that. I had one case involving a victim of human trafficking who was so terrified to sit on the witness stand and face her trafficker that she literally, physically became ill, and we had to keep taking breaks for her to do that. A lot of judges may not understand why sometimes they’re getting those types of issues, why this happens in these types of cases, so I work to educate them on how to understand these dynamics, how to better address them and to keep our community safe, while also empowering women—and all victims of domestic violence—to tell their stories.

How do you contrast yourself with Screnock in terms of core values?

I have Wisconsin values. I care deeply about equal protection under the law. I’m a strong advocate for public education. I care about marriage equality and people being free to be who they are and not be treated differently based on factors like sex, race and sexual orientation. I care about women’s rights and women’s reproductive rights. I care about workers’ rights and their right to freedom of association. I’ve demonstrated those values through a lifetime of service to the people of our state.

My opponent is an extremist. He blocked women’s lawful access to healthcare and was arrested twice. He has stated that he doesn’t regret doing any of that. He has worked on behalf of our governor and was proud of the work he did on Act 10; he touted that in his application for judge. He has worked to rig the maps on behalf of the Republican Party. He’s the recipient of money from our Chamber. He has thanked them for that, and I’m sure there’ll be more, the expectation being that he will do their bidding.

And, he is backed by the NRA and has vowed to further their agenda. He’s endorsed by Pro-Life Wisconsin, which wants to ban all forms of birth control and by the Wisconsin Family Action, which is against marriage equality. How is he possibly going to be objective on those issues given the amount of money he’s received and given all of his past history?

Speaking about endorsements, in the primary, you had more than 200 of your fellow circuit court judges supporting you. What other endorsements have you gotten—either before or after that—that you’re really proud of?

I’m really proud of the endorsements I’ve gotten from labor, both before the primary and since, and from teachers unions all over the state: working people. Wisconsin is made up of working people, and those are some of the people whose rights are at risk and who need to be protected on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

To learn more about Judge Rebecca Dallet, visit dalletforjustice.com. Remember to register and cast your ballot in the important Wisconsin General Election, Tuesday, April 3.