Both Wisc. Supreme Court candidates will emphasize experience.

Byline: David Ziemer

The two remaining candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Barron County Circuit Court Judge Edward R. Brunner and Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge Patience Roggensack, are entering the final leg of the campaign, to be determined on Tuesday, April 1, with both candidates stressing their respective experience in the trial and appellate courts.

In an interview with Wisconsin Law Journal, Roggensack stressed the significant difference in not only the day-to-day work, but the institutional nature of the courts, noting that, like the Supreme Court, the court of appeals is a collegial one in which the judges must work with others to reach a decision that states a clear rule of law for prospective use.

Roggensack stated that she has only filed a dissent in 11 or 12 cases in her six years on the court, and that in the rare instances she has, the Supreme Court has frequently reversed and adopted her position. Roggensack also emphasized her experience in discussing cases with the other judges on the court to produce a final decision that is not only correct, but clear and helpful to parties and judges in future cases.

While a trial court judge need only issue a decision that resolves the issues for the parties involved, Roggensack said, "The court of appeals and the Supreme Court decide law for other parties. Decisions must be written in a way that takes a long look at the law. They must be framed so they provide prospective guidance."

Roggensack noted that many of the splits on the current Supreme Court have nothing to do with any liberal/conservative division, adding that the current justices are much more complicated than that. Instead, dissents and pluralities result from failure to agree on how to approach a case.

As an example, Roggensack cited State v. Outagamie County Bd. of Adjustment, 2001 WI 78, 244 Wis.2d 613, 628 N.W.2d 376, in which the court produced a majority opinion joined in its whole by only three judges, and in part by five.

Dividing the court and producing only a plurality opinion was not any ideological disagreement, but disagreement over how to approach the property variance at issue -- as a use variance or an area variance.

Roggensack stated that she believes she would fit comfortably within the middle of the court, working to draw it together to speak with one voice.

"The public is better served by a clear unanimous rule of law," Roggensack said. "Appellate judges need to ask, 'how can we best let the...