Ann Walsh Bradley
From Ballotpedia
Ann Walsh Bradley
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Tenure
1995 - Present
Term ends
2025
Years in position
29
Compensation
Education
Contact
Ann Walsh Bradley is a judge of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. She assumed office on August 1, 1995. Her current term ends on July 31, 2025.
Bradley first became a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court through a nonpartisan election. She was first elected to the court in 1995, defeating N. Patrick Crooks.[1] To read more about judicial selection in Wisconsin, click here.
On April 11, 2024, Waslh Bradley announced that she would not seek re-election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.[2] To read more about 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, click here.
In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, a study examining the partisan affiliation of all state supreme court justices in the country. As part of this study, we assigned each justice a Confidence Score describing our confidence in the degree of partisanship exhibited by the justices' past partisan behavior, before they joined the court.[3] Bradley received a confidence score of Indeterminate.[4] Click here to read more about this study.
Biography
Before serving on the supreme court, Bradley was a judge of the Marathon County Circuit Court from 1985 to 1995. Before that, she worked as an attorney in private practice from 1976 to 1985. Before she began her legal career, she was a high school teacher. Bradley received a bachelor's degree from Webster College, and she earned her J.D. from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1976.[5]
Elections
2025
- See also: Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2025
Ann Walsh Bradley did not file to run for re-election.
2015
Ann Walsh Bradley defeated James Daley in the general election for Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2015.
- See also: Wisconsin judicial elections, 2015
| General election, 2015 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Vote % | Votes |
 Ann Walsh Bradley Incumbent |
58.1% | 471,866 |
| James Daley | 41.9% | 340,632 |
| Total Votes | 813,200 |
Endorsements
- 173 current and retired Wisconsin judges[8]
- Former Wisconsin First Lady Sue Ann Thompson (R–Wisconsin, 1987-2001), Congressman Ron Kind, (D–Wisconsin, 1997-Present), State Senator Dale Schultz (R–Richland Center, 1991-2015), and State Senator Tim Cullen (D–Janesville, 1975-1987, 2011-2015)[8]
- 101 current and retired law enforcement officers[8]
Campaign finance
March 30 reporting period
The pre-election reporting period concluded on March 30. Bradley reported a fundraising total of $381,000 from February 3 through March 23, while Daley received $148,000 during the same period. Bradley also held the cash-on-hand advantage with $281,000 on hand a week before the election compared to $214,000 for Daley.[9]
Political donors
The following includes the top 5 organizations that donated to Bradley's campaigns for the Wisconsin Supreme Court according to publicly available campaign finance records.[10]
| Donor | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Wisconsin Educational Association Council | $19,250 |
| Wisconsin State Auto Workers | $9,625 |
| AFSCME Wisconsin | $8,625 |
| Federation of Teachers Local 212 | $8,625 |
| Wisconsin Citizens for Responsive Government | $8,625 |
Analysis
Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship (2020)
Last updated: June 15, 2020
In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, a study examining the partisan affiliation of all state supreme court justices in the country as of June 15, 2020.
The study presented Confidence Scores that represented our confidence in each justice's degree of partisan affiliation. This was not a measure of where a justice fell on an ideological spectrum, but rather a measure of how much confidence we had that a justice was or had been affiliated with a political party. The scores were based on seven factors, including but not limited to party registration.[11]
The five resulting categories of Confidence Scores were:
- Strong Democrat
- Mild Democrat
- Indeterminate[12]
- Mild Republican
- Strong Republican
This justice's Confidence Score, as well as the factors contributing to that score, is presented below. The information below was current as of June 2020.
Ann Walsh
Bradley
Wisconsin
- Partisan Confidence Score:
Indeterminate - Judicial Selection Method:
Elected - Key Factors:
- Was a registered Democrat before 2020
Partisan Profile
Details:
Bradley was a registered Democrat before she was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1995. She donated $500 to nonpartisan campaigns.
Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores (2012)
In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan ideology of state supreme court justices. They created a scoring system in which a score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology, while scores below 0 were more liberal.
Bradley received a campaign finance score of -0.39, indicating a liberal ideological leaning. This was more liberal than the average score of 0.42 that justices received in Wisconsin.
The study was based on data from campaign contributions by the judges themselves, the partisan leaning of those who contributed to the judges' campaigns, or, in the absence of elections, the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study was not a definitive label of a justice, but an academic summary of various relevant factors.[13]
Noteworthy cases
Wisconsin Supreme Court finds state legislative maps in violation of the state constitution (2023)
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley sided with the majority opinion on this case. In a 4-3 decision on Dec. 22, 2023, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the state’s legislative maps violated the state constitution and ordered the state to draw new maps for the 2024 elections. The justice wrote the following in their majority opinion:[14]
| “ |
We hold that the contiguity requirements in Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 mean what they say: Wisconsin's state legislative districts must be composed of physically adjoining territory. The constitutional text and our precedent support this common-sense interpretation of contiguity. Because the current state legislative districts contain separate, detached territory and therefore violate the constitution's contiguity requirements, we enjoin the Wisconsin Elections Commission from using the current legislative maps in future elections ... Because we enjoin the current state legislative district maps from future use, remedial maps must be drawn prior to the 2024 elections.[15][16] |
” |
The original petitioners argued that Wisconsin’s legislative districts violated multiple provisions of the state constitution, including equal protection, freedom of speech and association, separation of powers, and contiguous legislative districts. The state's legislative maps were ordered to be enacted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April 2022 after the governor vetoed them and the state legislature failed to override that veto.[14]
Articles:
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on July 8 issued decisions in two environmental cases that had pitted the state legislature against the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in a disagreement over which government entity has the authority to regulate water pollution and irrigation practices. In both cases, the court held 4-2 that the DNR is authorized to restrict permits in order to protect the state’s water resources.[17][18][19]
The pair of cases, both initiated by Clean Wisconsin Inc. and Pleasant Lake Management District, centered on Wisconsin Act 21—a 2011 law that limits state agency authority by prohibiting state agencies from taking actions not specifically authorized by the state legislature.[17]
The first case concerned an administrative law judge's (ALJ) order that the DNR limit the size of a dairy herd causing nearby groundwater contamination. The DNR under then-Governor Scott Walker (R) did not enforce the ALJ’s directive, arguing that Act 21 prohibited the agency from carrying out the order.[17][18]
A Dane County Circuit Court judge in 2016 affirmed the DNR's authority to limit the size of the dairy herd to address water pollution. The DNR appealed the decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The current DNR under Governor Tony Evers (D) changed its position and had since claimed regulatory authority in the case.[17][18]
The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the circuit court's decision. Writing for the majority, Justice Jill Karofsky stated "we conclude that an agency may rely upon a grant of authority that is explicit but broad when undertaking agency action, and such an explicit but broad grant of authority complies with [Act 21]."[17][18]
In the second case, challengers sued the DNR seeking stricter enforcement of regulations regarding large-scale water withdrawals for irrigation. Challengers claimed that the agency failed to consider the cumulative negative impact on water levels in nearby lakes and streams when it issued permits for nine high-capacity wells. As in the previous case, the DNR argued that Act 21 prevented the agency from considering the cumulative impact of the new wells.[17][19]
The Wisconsin Supreme Court again affirmed the circuit court's decision in the case, holding that the DNR erroneously claimed that it lacked regulatory authority. Writing for the majority, Justice Rebecca Dallet stated, "The DNR's authority to consider the environmental effects of proposed high capacity wells, while broad, is nevertheless explicitly permitted by statute."[17][19]
Chief Justice Annette Ziegler joined Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky in both majority opinions. Justice Brian Hagedorn did not participate in the case.[17][18][19]
Justices Rebecca Bradley and Patience Roggensack dissented, arguing in part: “Elevating its environmental policy preferences over the legislature's prerogative to reclaim its constitutional authority, the majority distorts the plain language of [Act 21] to achieve its own ends."[17][18][19]
Court upholds voter ID law (2014)
The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued two rulings on July 31, 2014, upholding the state's law requiring voters to present photo identification. Justice Patience Roggensack wrote the majority opinions for Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker and League of Women Voters v. Walker, ruling that Wisconsin’s voter ID law was constitutional. The bill in question was introduced in the Wisconsin State Legislature in January 2011 and was signed into law by Governor Scott Walker (R) that May. The legislation was in effect for just one election, the 2012 primary, before being placed on hold. The law underwent a series of challenges.
In NAACP, the plaintiffs had argued that requiring identification to cast a vote violated citizens' constitutional right to vote. Similarly, the plaintiffs in League of Women Voters argued that the law violated the state's constitution by imposing an “additional qualification” to vote.[20]
In 4-3 and 5-2 votes, the court ruled in both cases that the voter ID law did not violate the Wisconsin Constitution and argued that “it is clearly within [the legislature’s] province to require any person offering to vote[] to furnish such proof as it deems requisite[] that he is a qualif[i]ed elector.”[20] Justice Bradley and Justice N. Patrick Crooks dissented in League of Women Voters , arguing that the voter ID law in question would not prevent voter fraud.[21] Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justices Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks dissented in NAACP.
The court also called on state officials to waive the cost of securing documents required to obtain identification.[22] The ruling was made under appeal, requiring a federal appeals court to overturn it for the requirement to be in effect for the November 4 elections.[23]
Court upholds Act 10, limiting collective bargaining for public employees (2014)
On July 31, 2014, the Wisconsin Supreme Court voted five to two to uphold Act 10, a law that modified Wisconsin labor laws to limit public employees from collective bargaining on issues other than base wages. Justice Michael Gableman wrote in the majority opinion that collective bargaining is not a fundamental right under the constitution for public employees. The court said that collective bargaining is a benefit extended to workers in the public sector by the legislature and can be restricted or broadened as the legislature deems appropriate. While the ruling did not affect public workers' right to unionize, Gableman wrote that government employers are not "obligated to listen" to the union.[24]
Justice Bradley wrote the dissenting opinion. She said that the court's ruling "diluted public workers'...right to freedom of association" in Wisconsin.[24] Further, Justice Bradley said, "The majority has opened the door for the state to withhold benefits and punish individuals based on their membership in disfavored groups."[24][25]
State supreme court judicial selection in Wisconsin
- See also: Judicial selection in Wisconsin
The seven justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court are elected in statewide nonpartisan elections. Judges serve ten-year terms, and to remain on the court, they must run for re-election after their term expires. Only one seat may be elected in any year, and more than two candidates for each seat must file to have a primary.[26][27]
Qualifications
To serve on the supreme court, a judge must be:
- licensed to practice law in Wisconsin for a minimum of five years immediately prior to election or appointment[28]
Chief justice
The chief justice of the court is selected by peer vote for a term of two years.
Vacancies
In the event of a vacancy on the court, the governor has the power and duty to appoint an individual to the vacancy. The governor screens judicial applicants using an advisory council on judicial selection. The council recommends three to five candidates to the governor, although the governor is not bound by their recommendations. The appointed justice must then stand for election in the first subsequent year in which no other justice's term expires.[27][26][29]
The map below highlights how vacancies are filled in state supreme courts across the country.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ State of Wisconsin Collection, "State of Wisconsin 1995-1996 Blue Book," accessed July 28, 2021
- ↑ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Justice Ann Walsh Bradley will not run for re-election; appeals judge Chris Taylor considering bid," accessed April 11, 2024
- ↑ We calculated confidence scores by collecting several data points such as party registration, donations, and previous political campaigns.
- ↑ The five possible confidence scores were: Strong Democrat, Mild Democrat, Indeterminate, Mild Republican, and Strong Republican.
- ↑ Project Vote Smart, "Justice Ann Walsh Bradley (WI)"
- ↑ Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, "Candidates Registered 2015 Spring Election," January 8, 2015
- ↑ Wisconsin Election Commission, "2015 Spring Election Results," accessed September 19, 2019
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Bradley for Justice, "Campaign News," accessed March 11, 2015
- ↑ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Bradley outpaces Daley in fundraising for Supreme Court race," March 30, 2015
- ↑ Follow the Money, "Ann Walsh Bradley," accessed July 29, 2021
- ↑ The seven factors were party registration, donations made to partisan candidates, donations made to political parties, donations received from political parties or bodies with clear political affiliation, participation in political campaigns, the partisanship of the body responsible for appointing the justice, and state trifecta status when the justice joined the court.
- ↑ An Indeterminate score indicates that there is either not enough information about the justice’s partisan affiliations or that our research found conflicting partisan affiliations.
- ↑ Stanford University, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns," October 31, 2012
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Democracy Docket, "Wisconsin Legislative Redistricting Challenge (Clarke)," accessed January 2, 2024
- ↑ Supreme Court of Wisconsin, "Case No. 2023AP1399-OA," accessed January 2, 2024
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.8 Wisconsin Public Radio, "Wisconsin Supreme Court Affirms DNR Authority To Restrict, Deny Farm Permits To Protect Water," July 8, 2021
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 Wisconsin Supreme Court, "Clean Wisconsin, Inc., Lynda Cochart, Amy Cochart, Roger DeJardin, Sandra Winnemueller and Chad Cochart v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources," July 8, 2021
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 Wisconsin Supreme Court, "Clean Wisconsin, Inc. and Pleasant Lake Management District v. Wisconsin Departement of Natural Resources," July 8, 2021
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, "Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds voter ID," July 31, 20214
- ↑ Fox 6, "Wisconsin Supreme Court’s voter ID ruling creates confusion," August 1, 2014
- ↑ New York Times, "Federal Appeals Court Permits Wisconsin Voter ID Law," September 12, 2014
- ↑ NBC 15, "UPDATE: Request for rehearing in voter ID case rejected," September 26, 2014
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 Journal Sentinel, "Supreme Court upholds Scott Walker's Act 10 union law," August 1, 2014
- ↑ USA Today, "Wisconsin court backs Walker, controversial union law," July 31, 2014
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 National Center for State Courts, "Methods of Judicial Selection," accessed August 12, 2021
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 Wisconsin State Legislature, "Wisconsin Constitution," accessed September 19, 2014 (Article VII, Section 4: pg.10) Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "section4" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Wisconsin State Legislature, "Wisconsin Constitution," accessed September 19, 2014 (Article VII, Section 24: pg.11)
- ↑ Wisconsin State Legislature, "8.50 - Special elections," accessed April 19, 2023
