Although Madison is supposedly the liberal mecca of the Midwest, if I was part of a criminal case, I’d want it tried in first my highly conservative, rural home town with a population of 1,000. With my values that may seem counterintuitive, but with the way the Wisconsin Supreme Court votes nowadays, I’d take my chances. Supreme Court Judge David Prosser, who is now up for re-election, has been part of what he himself calls a “common sense 4-3 conservative majority” and has handed down rulings that many now see as a puppet of Gov. Scott Walker’s policy. With the upcoming election, both challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg and Prosser claim impartiality. Remembering two common sayings – “We are what we repeatedly do” and “Show me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are” – can help us prevent elected officials from pulling the wool over our eyes by elected officials once again.

Prosser spent 18 years in the state Assembly as a Republican and 12 years in the Wisconsin state Supreme Court. If re-elected, he will serve another 10-year term on the Supreme Court. When evaluating who he is, we must first look at what he repeatedly does.

Although judges are by definition impartial, he has historically voted conservatively. Additionally, Prosser’s campaign issued a press release in December that said he would be a “complement” to both the new Republican governor and the Republican majority in the Legislature. Even more, he has gotten into numerous squabbles, including one I previously reported on, with Judge Shirley Abrahamson, who votes liberally. In fact, he has admitted to calling her a “total bitch” and saying he would “destroy” her.

Now that Walker’s popularity has gone into a tailspin and the election is close, Prosser abandoned ship and said he never made the “complement” statement. He also said “I don’t necessarily agree with the bill.” If we look at what he repeatedly does, though, we can see that whatever he says currently is a band aid for his impartiality.

Although he had nothing to do with the drafting of Walker’s union tyranny law, his statement is just an attempt to distance himself from the administration for the election. And what is he really going to lose by using such vague language as “don’t necessarily agree”? Prosser also added, “I wasn’t one of those fire-breathing partisans, and frankly I was known as being able to work with the other side of the aisle very, very frequently.” His voting history, previous statements and catfights with Abrahamson suggest differently.

We can also tell who Prosser is by looking at who his friends are. Prosser is endorsed not only by Wisconsin Right to Life but also by business lobbying groups including the state’s largest, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce. Through these donations and the Impartial Justice Act, which gives judges money for campaigns, Prosser has a well-funded run. The IJA encourages candidates that would not normally have a chance to run.

Prosser lampoons the IJA as directly designed to damage his re-election campaign. Although he stated, “I don’t think there was any doubt that [the law] was designed to affect me,” he took the money they provided him anyway, “not because he believes it’s a good law but to avoid criticism that he is beholden to special interests,” according to the Cap Times.

Right. Even more, Prosser sees union mobilization to stop his election campaign as illegal. He has been protested against, and the Wisconsin Education Association Council urges its 96,000 members to vote and campaign for his opponent. “This is a direct assault on judicial independence,” Prosser said. “People need to understand that.”

Those who equate Prosser’s re-election as an affirmation of Walker are simplifying the situation far too much. Although he has supported our new governor and voted conservatively, he holds a unique office that is just as susceptible to corruption and dangerous law-making as Walker. It is also important to remember there are two candidates in this race, and if there’s anything we have learned, it’s that no politician has a clean slate. Kloppenburg is not without her faults and is also endorsed by independent groups, so much so that she said, “I have not had to be on the phone every day raising money. … I’ve had the luxury of being able to go out and just talk to people.”

However, it is Prosser, not Kloppenburg, that is trying to fool us twice. If we look at his past actions and the cohorts who lend him cash, we can see that whatever Prosser is telling us now is just an attempt to grab a vote.

Taylor Nye ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in biological anthropology.