Wisconsin will hold primary elections Tuesday for the State Supreme Court. Three justices are vying to be one of two candidates to face off in the final election April 1.

Roggensack:

Pat Roggensack, a UW Law School graduate, prides herself on her work as a Wisconsin Court of Appeals judge since 1996.

“Currently, on the Supreme Court we have four former trial judges, two former legislators, and a former law professor. I believe what I bring would be different from what is there,” Roggensack said.

If elected, Roggensack says she would like to see an increase in the court’s efficiency.

“The Supreme Court decides about 70 cases a year, but there are a lot more issues the public would like to have addressed,” she said. “I would like to focus on those cases in areas where having access to the full judicial system is too expensive — for example, family law.”

Hand in hand with her wish to increase the number of cases the state Supreme Court hears each year, Roggensack wishes the court would cooperate more with the appellate court; she described the relations between the two as “two ships floating by each other in the still of the night.”

“The Supreme Court could take a class of cases involving one issue, take one case, and decide upon it. Then the Supreme Court could take all the cases that stand together and overrule those cases to come out with one firm statement of the law,” she said.

This would save time and money, Roggensack said.

“People would know what to plan on. Lawyers would know better how to advise their clients,” she said. “My suggestion will cost no more money. Secondly, it’s something the Supreme Court can institute, and it doesn’t require anyone else [to] be involved.”

State officials, including Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton, have been clamoring for legislators to pass an Impartial Justice bill that would make Supreme Court campaigns completely publicly funded.

“If you were having someone argue your case, would you want to choose your lawyer based on contributions they made to a judicial campaign?” Lawton said.

Roggensack said she could not comment on the bill because she would not predispose herself to legislation over which, if elected, she might have rule.

According to a spokesperson, Roggensack’s campaign is funded by Wisconsin residents.

Higginbotham:

Paul Higginbotham said he is basing his election effort, which he calls “Campaign for Equal Justice,” on his experiences in both government and the community.

“I’m just more understanding of the concerns and lives of the average citizen of the states. I grew up with spiritual and religious values,” Higginbotham said. “My campaign is all about my incredible depth and experience, to be somebody that everyone in the state can look to and think that justice is going to happen for them.”

Higginbotham is currently working as a trial lawyer, but he spent eight and a half years as a circuit judge while working on community programs such as the Madison Equal Opportunities Commission.

Higginbotham said he “absolutely supports” the Impartial Justice bill.

“I think it’s important that our Legislature and our government take fundraising out of these races,” he said. “People have a right to think that their justices are not working just for special-interest groups.”

Higginbotham is raising campaign money primarily from individual contributors, he said.

“I have an excellent reputation as a judge who is not beholden to anybody.”

If elected, Higginbotham will be the first black Supreme Court justice in Wisconsin.

“The fact that I’m African American means I have those experiences. I have viewed our society [from a different standpoint than] the court and my opponents,” he said.

Higginbotham does not think the state needs another former appellate judge in the State Supreme Court because, he said, trial court is “where the rubber meets the road.”

“If you’re never been a trial judge, I’ll argue that your ability to understand the court that well is hampered. I’ve handled all the cases a trial judge can handle. The Supreme Court is ultimately deciding upon what happens in the trial court,” Higginbotham said.

Brunner:

Edward Brunner, Chief Justice of the 10th District, feels the Supreme Court does not necessarily need a judge with appellate court experience.

“The experience of being an appellate court judge is really pretty limited,” Brunner said. “It’s not about the number of cases we’re going to hear from the Supreme Court. There is no outcry from the community to hear more cases.”

Brunner, after 15 years as a judge, claims he has the most experience.

Originally from Akron, Ohio, Brunner graduated from Marquette University and University of Akron Law School. He said he prides himself in the judicial work he has done in Barron County, noting his work with members of the its diverse community, including Native Americans, Somali refugees and Latinos.

“I have worked to provide interpreters, so the Somalis can have better access to the court system, and I have worked to improve the relationships between the tribal courts and the state courts,” Brunner said. “I have developed programming and facilitated the programming in and out of courts.”

Brunner said he is the only candidate who has administrative experience and has worked to solve the future funding problems in court. Brunner also pointed out that he was also the only candidate to support the Impartial Justice bill while it was in its infancy as a citizen-initiated action.

“I joined on because I believe it is absolutely essential to the court system and the integrity of the court system that we have a publicly financed campaign,” he said.

Because Tuesday is a primary election, the two judges who receive the most votes will continue on to the general election. The Supreme Court is currently made up of three women and four men.