Last month the Wisconsin Supreme Court — and its liberal majority — amended their internal operating procedure and made changes that will result in the speeding up of the disposition of multiple upcoming cases.
The first change will limit the time dissenting justices have to respond to orders. The second allows the court to shorten the window of time parties have to respond to petitions with a dissent or concurrence to only two business days. The last change allows the court to agree to hear cases based on a majority vote of members that are actually present at a certain meeting instead a majority of the whole court.
These amendments hold the risk of undermining the integrity of judicial system as a whole and could have disastrous effects on Wisconsin politics as a whole.
These changes appeared after particularly partisan-charged cases are moving through the court system. These include cases regarding abortion rights, bargaining rights of public sector unions and as election provisions.
As Wisconsin Watch notes, these changes come in the wake of the court throwing out the Republican gerrymandered voting districts, leading to lawmakers approving districts drawn by Gov. Tony Evers. A compromise which set back Republicans and promoted a Democratic majority, only increasing the tension between the two parties.
Many Conservatives are incredibly vocal about their disagreement with the new policies. Many see it as a Democratic move to push their personal agenda, even characterizing it as an abuse of power, Wisconsin Watch notes. With these more politically controversial cases coming up, Conservatives interpret it as a democratic attempt to set themselves up to push through to the results they want.
Supreme Court decisions are intended to be made based on the constitutionality of the issue at hand, not partisan politics, but as with many of the state rulings in Wisconsin, these amendments appear to be incredibly partisan. These amendments are especially dangerous because when dissenting voices are left unheard or not given a fair shot at stating their case, concerns surrounding impartiality could arise.
This impartiality and partisan nature of the Wisconsin Supreme Court could damage the relationship between the public and the courts. Citizens could perceive the court as nothing but a product of political majority, instead of a governing body that serves to represent the best interests of the public guided by law and law only.
This has the potential to greatly alter Wisconsin politics. These new regulations are intended to lead to quicker resolutions in legal disputes, according to Wisconsin Watch, which can be both beneficial and negative.
While there may be greater efficiency for turning over cases, critics argue it limits justices’ ability to thoroughly hear and consider cases. Especially when a case has a certain level of complexity, fast-tracking the process could lead to important details getting overlooked.
These limitations that dissenting justices would have to respond to cases could also influence their position within the court. They might be more likely to side with the majority if they aren’t able to spend a lot of time considering all the details of a case which has the potential to decrease judicial independence according to Wisconsin Watch. In U.S. history, some of the most impactful thoughts to come out of the Supreme Court have been from dissents on a variety of cases, fast-tracking this process has the potential to make these dissents on the state level utterly un-impactful.
By decreasing judicial independence, these limitations erode the integrity of the court as a figurehead that is an impartial check on the other branches of government. If decisions are driven by political opinion rather than constitutional principles, it opens the door for these topics that affect all Americans to become partisan bargaining chips.
Along the same line, if the court ends up hearing cases based on a majority vote, this means cases are being heard with fewer justices present. This means decisions will be made based on whoever is physically in the room at the time, according to Wisconsin Watch. This holds implications for the ideological balance of the court and will result in outcomes that differ from what would have happened if decisions were made by the whole court — not just those physically participating.
Overall, these changes have the potential to influence the fairness of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Instead of cases being thoroughly thought out and deliberated by a variety of different voices, the judiciary process will be much more streamlined and majority based. While making the courts move more efficiently is surely important, it could come at a cost.
These amendments have the potential to make things even more divided amongst political lines in the Wisconsin Supreme Court as whatever party holds the majority will be able to push their partisan agendas faster. The balance between efficiency and justice is a fine line and as of now, constitutional rights are at risk in Wisconsin. The implications of these changes could manifest in a complete change for the political landscape of Wisconsin.
Sammie Garrity is a freshman studying journalism and political science.
