Michael Gableman is asking another leftist Wisconsin Supreme Court justice to recuse herself from his disciplinary case before the state Office of Lawyer Regulation, according to court documents obtained by The Federalist.
Gableman, the former state Supreme Court justice tapped by Republican legislative leadership in 2021 to lead a politically-doomed investigation into Wisconsin’s irregularity-filled 2020 presidential election, could have his law license suspended at the hands of a liberal-led court that clearly loathes him.
The court will ultimately decide if the recommended 3-year suspension is proper.
‘No Reasonable Person’
On Wednesday, Gableman’s attorneys filed a motion with the court calling on Justice Janet Protasiewicz to step away from the proceedings, citing biased comments she made on the campaign trail. Protasiewicz, who in 2023 defeated former Justice Daniel Kelly in what was at the time the most costly judicial election in U.S. history, released a caustic press release effectively declaring Kelly and Gableman enemies of the state.
”It’s too bad that Dan Kelly continues to join Mike Gableman in courting extremists who oppose democracy,” the Milwaukee County liberal opined. “Dan Kelly and Mike Gableman have demonstrated to the citizens of Wisconsin that they are not fit to be on the bench.”
In the same campaign statement, Protasiewicz denigrated all Republicans concerned with election integrity, accusing them of being part of “disgraceful effort to promote Donald Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election.”
Given her history, Gableman argues Protasiewicz is unable to live up to a core judiciary standard: Avoiding even the appearance of bias.
“Because of her statements on the campaign trail, she can’t comply with this standard while deciding whether Gableman has breached his professional responsibilities or, if he has, determining the appropriate discipline,” the recusal motion states, adding that “no reasonable person would want a judge to rule on his or her case after publicly and zealously attacking the person‘s professional judgment and character.”
The motion quotes from a 2020 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling, which borrows from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1965 Estes v. Texas decision, cementing the basic requirement of due process, and the pursuit of preventing even “the probability of unfairness. . .”
Noble words. But In Wisconsin, the justices alone are the final arbiters of recusal, each deciding the question of whether to recuse, or not to recuse.
‘Rubber Stamp’
Last month, leftist Justice Rebecca Dallet denied a similar request to recuse herself from the Gableman disciplinary proceedings.
On the campaign trail in 2017, Dallet accused Gableman, a justice at the time, of running “one of the most unethical campaigns in state history.” She attacked him for refusing to recuse himself from what she banally described as a “criminal campaign-finance” investigation, accusing Gableman of being a “rubber stamp for his political allies.” Dallet was referring to Wisconsin’s notorious “John Doe” investigations, politically-driven probes led by left-leaning government agents who secretly targeted Wisconsin conservatives. Gableman wrote the majority opinion that found the star chambers unconstitutional and that the special prosecutor “was the instigator of a ‘perfect storm’ of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent…”
In her denial order, Dallet insisted that none of the public statements she made about Gableman while she campaigned for her Supreme Court seat “create a serious risk of actual bias…” The justice claims she can act fairly and impartially in Gableman’s case.
“In short, the opinions I expressed about Gableman’s judicial and campaign conduct from 2008 to 2018 say nothing about the conduct he is now accused of committing, let alone demonstrate that in either fact or appearance I cannot act impartially in this matter,” Dallet wrote.
‘For That Reason, I Recuse’
Meanwhile, the newest leftist to join the court did recuse herself. Justice Susan Crawford , who won her seat earlier this year in an election that shattered 2023’s short-lived spending record, agreed to step aside, but not because Gableman questioned her ability to be impartial. She said she is recusing because several of the charges lodged against Gableman involve his conduct during an open records lawsuit before former leftie Dane County Judge Frank Remington. Crawford, who was a Dane County circuit court judge at the time, wrote that she was “frequently in contact with Judge Remington and his staff due to the proximity of our chambers and courtrooms. I became aware of the conduct now at issue in this case through such contacts.”
“I believe it is likely I was exposed to information and impressions related to Attorney Gableman’s conduct and demeanor in the circuit court that fall outside of the record before this court,” Crawford wrote in her order. “The rule provides that recusal is mandatory under these circumstances. For that reason, I recuse.”
She also called Gableman a “disgraced conspiracy theorist” in a campaign flyer. Her characterizations would understandably raise red flags about how Crawford would deliberate in the disciplinary case.
‘Lawyered Up’
The Office of Lawyer Regulation’s formal complaint, filed last year, accuses Gableman of 10 violations of the Supreme Court’s professional conduct rules during his year-plus tenure as the Assembly’s special counsel. The charges include everything from lying under oath and mishandling public records to violating client confidentiality.
Gableman’s final report recommended doing away with the feckless Wisconsin Elections Commission and called on lawmakers to decertify the state’s electors in the 2020 election in which Democrat Joe Biden claimed victory over incumbent Republican President Donald Trump by little more than 20,000 votes in the Badger State.
“Entering a plea of no contest, Gableman has not disputed the facts in the report,” Courthouse News reported last year. The Office of Lawyer Regulation has recommended suspending Gableman’s law license for three years. Gableman could also be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in fees.
Gableman’s investigation, critics say, was riddled with self-inflicted wounds. He approached it, as one source told The Federalist, like a bull in a China closet. But the flaws didn’t negate the necessity of the probe.
The “Big Lie,” as we have learned over the past five years, was the left’s whopper that the 2020 election was “the most secure in American history” and that those who questioned that line were “election deniers” and threats to democracy. From billionaires financing leftist groups and operatives infiltrating swing state election offices to a flood of suspect mail-in ballots and law violations under the cover of Covid, the election was plagued with irregularities and inconsistencies. Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway literally wrote the book on it.
Investigators ran into obstruction walls from so-called “Wisconsin 5” cities that refused to turn over communications and other records on election administration. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a tool of the national Democratic Party, advised elections officials in Green Bay, Milwaukee, Madison and elsewhere to get “lawyered up.”
‘Never Practice Law in Wisconsin Again’
The election review was doomed from the start, in large part because weak-kneed Republican lawmakers couldn’t take the relentless criticism from Democrats and the Pravda Press that anyone countenancing Donald Trump’s accusations of a rigged 2020 election was an insurrectionist.
Republican Robin Vos, Wisconsin’s longest-serving Assembly Speaker, hired Gableman as special counsel. He also named then-state Rep. Janel Brandtjen chairwoman of the Assembly elections committee. Brandtjen in particular uncovered serious election integrity issues. But as Vos took more heat from the left, he became more disenchanted with the investigations. He removed Brandtjen the committee chair position and sacked Gableman, after the former Supreme Court justice endorsed Vos’ challenger in the 2022 primary.
The speaker said Gableman’s review “went off the rails” and that the former justice should “never practice law in Wisconsin again.”
“I certainly hope Michael Gableman loses his law license,” Vos told WISN TV. “I hope he goes back to work at Home Depot, where he was working prior to working for us.”
The cost of Gableman’s investigation hit $2.3 million in expenses, including checks to outside lawyers and court fines and penalties, according to Courthouse News.
While Gableman’s law license hangs in the balance, his case once again exposes just how far left the Wisconsin Supreme Court has tilted over the past few years — and the recusal problems the liberals that lead it face. Crawford’s decision to remove herself from Gableman’s case leaves the court with a 3-3 split between liberals and conservatives. If Protasiewicz should recuse, the disciplinary decision would be decided by a conservative majority, although Justice Brian Hagedorn has at times sided with the liberals, particularly in election law cases.
Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.
