News

Citizen Action Wisconsin members protest ‘untruthful’ ad against Justice Louis Butler

Bringing “shame on Gableman” signs to the Supreme Court debate Saturday, about 25 members of a Wisconsin-based group rallied against candidate Judge Michael Gableman Friday night for an ad attacking his opponent, Justice Louis Butler.

According to program director for Citizen Action Wisconsin Robert Kraig, the group started their protest at 6:15 p.m. in front of Vilas Communication Hall where the final debate was held, and their goal was to inform the public about the alleged falsities in Gableman’s ad. The group protested until the debate started at 7 p.m.

The group has filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Judicial Commission asking them to conduct an investigation into the conduct of Gableman and his campaign in putting forward this advertisement.

“We put a complaint into the commissioner because Gableman ran an ad that told lies about Louis Butler,” said Teresa Thomas-Boyd, one of the protesters. “He violated the Judicial Code, and we are protesting that.”

According to the complaint letter sent to Wisconsin Judicial Commission by Citizen Action of Wisconsin, the ad stated that as a judge, Butler found a loophole to put criminal Reuben Lee Mitchell back on the streets after raping an 11-year-old girl. Mitchell later molested another child, the complaint said.

The letter said the ad then places a picture of Butler next to one of Mitchell, both black men, and asks, “Can Wisconsin families feel safe with Louis Butler on the Supreme Court?”

“The real story is that when he was a public defender, he defended this person 25 years ago,” Kraig said. “He won at one level but did not get him off. … [Mitchell] served his whole sentence and then later committed a crime. So the first part of the ad is false and falsely suggests that [Butler] did it as a judge, when, in fact, he was the public defender.”

Kraig said Gableman violated Supreme Court misrepresentation rules with his misleading ad against Butler.

“Judges are not allowed to deceive the public about themselves or their opponent when they run for office … or to do anything that creates an atmosphere of fear,” Kraig said.

Kraig said “this is the worst ad that has ever been run by a judicial candidate,” adding independent groups often run ads about other candidates that are similar to this, but it is “the only nasty ad we have seen from a candidate.”

In the final Supreme Court debate between Gableman and Butler, Gableman said the ad “fulfilled its primary purpose,” which was to show the difference between the two candidates and their backgrounds.

In Butler’s last race in 2000, he said taking a candidate’s background into consideration was fair game. Gableman said based on each of the two candidates’ backgrounds, he would be tougher on crime because he has experience in prosecution, whereas Butler was a defense attorney.