SHARE

By of the

Madison — In an unusual move, a Dane County judge has refused to dismiss a voter ID case as ordered by the state Supreme Court, writing that he believed doing so would violate his oath to uphold the state constitution.

Instead of entering an order to terminate the case, Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess wrote in a brief order Thursday that he was instead stepping aside and having another judge dismiss the case.

"The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ordered this court to deliver the coup de grace to this case by dismissing plaintiff's Amended Complaint on remand. However, doing so would violate my oath to 'support ... the constitution of the State of Wisconsin,'" Niess wrote, quoting from the oath that judges must take under state law. "Accordingly, I recuse."

Niess did not return a call Tuesday. The case has been reassigned to Judge Ellen Berz, who has not yet acted on the case.

The spat does not appear to have any effect on the status of the voter ID law. That law, approved in 2011, was blocked for 21/2 years because of a wave of litigation, but was reinstated this month after a series of rulings in state and federal courts.

By taking such a stance, Niess risks being disciplined by judicial ethics officials, said Charles Geyh, a law professor at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law. Geyh has written on judicial ethics and judicial disqualification.

"Defying higher courts is not something judges are supposed to do," he said.

He called Niess' move "kind of an act of civil disobedience" and "a pretty defiant act." The move creates a conundrum because people should be praised for acts of conscience, but at the same time judges are duty-bound to follow the orders of higher courts, Geyh said.

Judges can step aside in cases in limited situations, such as if there is actual bias or the appearance of bias.

If someone filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, the agency would likely want to investigate whether Niess had appropriate reasons for recusing himself, Geyh said.

"You can't disqualify yourself just because you want to," he said.

Lester Pines, the attorney who brought the challenge to the voter ID law on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, said in 40 years of practice, he had never seen a judge act as Niess had. He called it a "statement of disagreement with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals."

"It's a courageous thing to do and he's free to do it," Pines said. "If he feels he can't do something in good conscience, he should recuse, and I commend him for that."

The League of Women Voters' challenge centered on an arcane part of the legislative process, rather than the merits of having a voter ID law. The league argued that the state constitution allows the Legislature to exclude felons and mentally incompetent people from voting, but not other classes of people.

In March 2012, Niess agreed with the group that the new law created a new category of people who cannot vote — those without ID — and thus violated the state constitution. He issued an order blocking the voter ID law.

The Madison-based District 4 Court of Appeals in a unanimous May 2013 ruling reversed Niess, finding that requiring the production of a photo ID is not an additional qualification for voting. Rather, it is a means of determining whether those who come to the polls are eligible to vote.

The state Supreme Court this July agreed with the appeals court and sent the case back to Niess for dismissal. The matter now sits with Berz.

The same day the Supreme Court ruled on the league's case, it also upheld the voter ID law in another challenge. That overturned a different Dane County judge's ruling that the ID requirement violated the right to vote in a case brought by the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera and the Milwaukee branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

At the time of the Supreme Court's orders, the voter ID law remained blocked because of a ruling in a pair of federal cases. But this month a panel of the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the ID requirement could go into effect for the Nov. 4 election.