We just got a fresh reminder of the significance of next month’s Wisconsin Supreme Court election, in which the ideological balance of the court will be at stake.
That reminder involves Jim Troupis, a Donald Trump 2020 campaign lawyer who advised Wisconsin Republicans on the fake electors scheme to overturn the presidential election.
The state high court’s 4-3 conservative majority on Thursday reappointed Troupis to the state’s Judicial Conduct Advisory Committee. The committee advises “judges and judicial officers governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct concerning the compliance of their contemplated or proposed conduct regarding the code,” per its website.
If you’re wondering who Troupis is, Wisconsin Public Radio has this recap:
Troupis was the lead Wisconsin attorney for former President Donald Trump’s campaign following Trump’s loss to President Joe Biden in the 2020 election. Troupis oversaw Trump’s partial recount in Dane and Milwaukee Counties, filing a lawsuit that asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to overturn Biden’s victory in the state. The court rejected the lawsuit on the day Wisconsin’s actual electors met at the Capitol.
And though the state Supreme Court’s 4-3 order reappointing Troupis to the judicial committee didn’t contain an explanation, liberal Justice Rebecca Dallet, in a statement reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, called him “partisan” and said it’s “unfortunate four of my colleagues have signed off on such a divisive pick.”
So the divides on the court are clear ahead of the election next month between Daniel Kelly and Janet Protasiewicz. Kelly is a former state Supreme Court justice and Trump ally who also advised Republicans on the fake electors scheme. Protasiewicz is a Milwaukee County circuit judge who was endorsed by Emily’s List, an abortion rights group. (Wisconsin justices are technically nonpartisan, so they’re discussed as conservatives and liberals, instead of Republicans and Democrats.)
As for the stakes of the election, NBC News previously reported that it’s “all but certain to shape abortion rights in the state and could help decide who wins the crucial battleground in the 2024 presidential election.” The latest battle over what should have been a nonpartisan appointment shows that Trumpism itself is on the judicial ballot as well.
