MADISON (Wis.) — Janet Protasiewicz, a liberal judge, attacked Daniel Kelly, her conservative opponent in the only race that will determine the ideological control at the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Kelly’s ties to a plan to overturn the 2020 election, was the subject of a heated only debate.
Kelly was criticized by Protasiewicz during Tuesday’s debate.
Both conservatives and liberals are deeply concerned about the race for Wisconsin Supreme Court. Kelly’s win would preserve conservative control of court. Protasiewicz’s win would create a liberal majority, something that hasn’t been possible for 15 years and could have major implications on issues such as abortion rights.
Protasiewicz criticised Kelly’s advice to Republicans regarding legal strategies to defeat the 2020 presidential election through the use “fake voters.” This was one of many attacks that the candidates made on each other during the debate.
Protasiewicz from Milwaukee County Circuit Court said, “The cherry on top is the fake electors scheme.”
Andrew Hitt, the former chairman of the Wisconsin GOP, testified before the House committee that he and Kelly had “HT0_ very extensive conversations about the plan.” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported last months that Kelly was paid $120,000 by the Republican Party at both the state and national levels to help them with “election integrity” issues.
Kelly retorted Tuesday against the allegations, claiming Protasiewicz was lying and that he had no involvement in the matter. He said that Hitt had “extensive discussions with his attorneys — plural” not only with him but with multiple people.
His testimony also stated that he spoke with me for 30 minutes and asked if I was on the alternate electors’ slate. Kelly, a former justice of the state Supreme Court, said that Kelly lost his seat in the 2020 election to Jill Karofsky, who was a liberal.
Kelly attacked Protasiewicz for revealing how prominently she’d broadcast her support for high-profile cases before the court, including those on abortion rights and elections.
Kelly stated, “This is the problem you have when you’re dealing with a candidate who talks only about her political views.” Kelly said, “She has already explained to each of you how she will approach it.”
Protasiewicz was also accused by Kelly, as well as outside support groups, of having massively outspent Kelly, and outside groups supporting them, of “being purchased and paid for”
Both candidates spent most time discussing re-litigating the accusations made in their campaign ads. This contest is already the most costly state Supreme Court race ever.
Kelly stated, “This seems like a pattern for your, Janet,” and he was referring specifically to Protasiewicz ads that Protasiewicz ran on state TV. He called Kelly ” corrupt” as well as ” an extreme who doesn’t care much about us.”
Protasiewicz accused Kelly and his associates of misleading her judicial record.
Outside groups that support Kelly’s cause have accused Protasiewicz of “[setting] violent crime free again and again.”
Protasiewicz stated that he has sentenced thousands of people.
The topic of abortion rights was not mentioned much, but it is a subject whose future depends on the outcome of April 4 elections.
It is widely believed that the fate of 1849 state abortion laws will be decided by the state Supreme Court in the near future.
However, the issue was brought up only once during the debate when each candidate was asked about their support for pro- and anti abortion groups. Planned Parenthood has endorsed Protasiewicz, as well as EMILY’s List (a Democratic group that supports women candidates who support abortion rights).
Kelly, who has not said how he would rule on such a case, was endorsed three groups which oppose abortion rights, and provided counsel to another Wisconsin group opposing abortion rights.
When asked about groups that have supported her, Protasiewicz stated that she could tell you that her opponent will be elected.
Kelly replied later, “You don’t know what my thoughts are about that abortion ban — You have no idea.”
“All of the endorsements I received were due to conversations I had with people and organizations. They asked me: “What kind of justice will you be?” He said that I had explained the role of a jurist to them in detail rather than talking about politics.
This debate took place just two weeks before Wisconsin voters go to the polls for a new justice. The court’s control is at risk. Both candidates are seeking to replace Justice Patience Roggensack who is a member the court’s conservative 4-3 majority. The race for the winning candidate is elected to a 10-year term. Early voting began on Tuesday and the former President Barack Obama tweeted about it to show his appreciation of Democrats.
The debate took place at the State Bar of Wisconsin offices and was sponsored by several local media outlets. This was the first and last time that the candidates had met since the February primary, which reduced the non-partisan field to four candidates.
