Procedural Safeguards for Original Actions under Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules

Introduction

In Kate Felton v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (No. 2025AP999-OA), the Wisconsin Supreme Court considered a petition for leave to commence an original action challenging the state’s congressional redistricting map. Petitioners, led by Kate Felton, advanced complex redistricting claims that they contend were either overlooked or improperly resolved in prior proceedings. Respondents include the Wisconsin Elections Commission and other state actors responsible for administering elections and defending the map.

The case is procedurally remarkable for two reasons. First, the Court’s order establishes clear deadlines and formatting requirements for responses, amicus curiae briefs, and attorney electronic filings. Second, Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley’s dissent raises profound concerns about the impact of hyper-partisan campaign spending on judicial impartiality and due process.

Summary of the Judgment

On May 15, 2025, the Court issued an order in response to the original action petition:

It directed respondents to file their formal response by May 29, 2025.
It outlined the procedure for non-party amicus curiae briefs, requiring a motion for leave under Wis. Stat. § 809.19(7), with proposed briefs due by May 30, 2025, and page/word limits strictly enforced.
It ordered all Wisconsin attorneys involved to opt in to the appellate court electronic filing system by May 22, 2025.

Justice Bradley dissented, arguing the petitions merely re-litigate issues previously decided in Johnson v. WEC (2022) and Clarke v. WEC (2023). She warned that the Court’s indulgence of repetitive partisan challenges erodes public confidence and depicted the proceedings as an extension of overt political strategy.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Johnson v. WEC (2022 WI 14): The Court adopted Governor Evers’ congressional map and denied reconsideration, establishing the finality of its remedial plan.
Clarke v. WEC (2023 WI 79): A split decision in which the majority reaffirmed the remedial map but drew criticism for alleged “usurpation” of legislative prerogatives.
Caperton v. Massey (556 U.S. 868, 2009): The U.S. Supreme Court held that due process may require recusal where campaign contributions create a probability of bias.
Miller v. Carroll (2020 WI 56): Wisconsin adopted the Caperton standard verbatim, finding due process violations in repeated social-media interactions by a judge with a party.

Legal Reasoning

The majority’s order is grounded in three core principles of appellate procedure and court administration:

Timeliness and Efficiency: By setting firm deadlines for responses and amicus briefs, the Court ensures that original petitions progress swiftly, minimizing undue delays and preserving the integrity of the electoral calendar.
Transparency and Fairness: The explicit amicus-curiae rules under Wis. Stat. § 809.19(7) guarantee that non-parties participate under uniform criteria, maintaining a level playing field and preventing ad hoc interventions.
Digital Access and Uniformity: Requiring attorneys to opt into the electronic filing system promotes consistency, reduces administrative burdens, and aligns with modern e-court practices.

Justice Bradley’s dissent focuses on the broader context of repeated redistricting petitions, invoking Caperton to argue that massive campaign spending by partisan actors creates an appearance of bias when the same parties return repeatedly to the Court. She contends that procedural compliance cannot cure the deeper threat to due process and judicial independence posed by political finance.

Impact

This order and its accompanying dissent have multiple potential effects:

Procedural Precedent: Future original actions in Wisconsin will adhere to these deadlines and amicus rules, fostering predictability and reducing opportunistic filings.
Judicial Independence Debate: The dissent’s critique may spur legislative or rule-making initiatives to further insulate judicial elections from partisan money, possibly including recusal standards or campaign finance restrictions.
National Influence: As state high courts nationwide face similar partisan pressures, Wisconsin’s approach to procedural rigour and its internal debate on bias may inform practices in other jurisdictions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Original Action: A direct petition to a supreme court asking it to decide a legal dispute (e.g., redistricting) without first going through lower courts.
Amicus Curiae: “Friend of the court” briefs by non-parties who have an interest in the case. They must obtain permission (leave) and comply with page or word limits.
Due Process Recusal Standard (Caperton): A judge must step aside if campaign contributions or personal dealings create a risk that a reasonable observer would doubt the judge’s impartiality.
Electronic Filing Opt-In: A requirement that attorneys register in the court’s digital case management system to file briefs and motions online, ensuring efficient record-keeping and public access.

Conclusion

The order in Felton v. Wisconsin Elections Commission reinforces strict procedural guardrails for original actions, promoting clarity, timeliness, and fair participation. At the same time, Justice Bradley’s forceful dissent soundly warns that these procedural measures alone cannot shield the judiciary from the corrosive influence of partisan campaign spending. Together, the majority and dissent sketch a balanced picture: while rules govern how quickly and transparently courts handle cases, guarding the Court’s legitimacy also demands vigilance against any appearance of bias. This dual message will resonate in Wisconsin and beyond, shaping the ongoing dialogue on judicial process and independence.