Prosser and Wilcox must recuse themselves from Green case

As Congressman Mark Green prepares to continue his fight to spend PAC money raised from Washington, D.C. interests in his race to be Governor of Wisconsin, all eyes now turn to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. And there should be no doubt that Justices David Prosser and Jon Wilcox should recuse themselves from this case.

An article from the Wisconsin State Journal in 2003 during the Scott Jensen trial describes when a justice should remove themselves from a case:

Under the state's judicial ethics code, a judge is advised not to participate in a case if he or she has a personal bias or prejudice toward the defendant or if a reasonable person who knows all the facts could question the judge's impartiality.

So let's look at the facts.

Justice Prosser served in the state legislature with Congressman Green. In fact, they were part of a leadership team together. Prosser was the Speaker of the House while Green was the Caucus Chairman so it is reasonable to assume they had some sort of relationship during this time that would cause a bias one way or another. Prosser and three other justices did not participate in the Scott Jensen trial for the same reason.

And there is no one in politics today that would want to strip power from the Wisconsin Elections Board more than Justice Wilcox. In 2001, fines levied against Wilcox and his campaign team were the largest ever given out in state history. From the Wisconsin State Journal:

In settling a lawsuit filed by the state Elections Board, Wilcox agreed to pay $10,000 for his campaign committee. The lawsuit charged Wilcox's committee and his campaign manager, Mark Block, with colluding with another group to evade campaign finance laws in his 1997 race for the state's highest court.

Back then the Wisconsin State Journal asked the following in an editorial:

Former opponent Kelly and Mike McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, have said Wilcox should resign his seat on the court. That's up for Wilcox to decide - and it may hinge on how effective he can be as a justice during the remaining six years of his 10-year term. For example, it's likely that Wilcox must recuse himself from any case involving "school choice," or public vouchers for private school students. Must he also step aside on cases involving campaign finance issues?

The answer is yes. The pall of that fine has only recently started to fade for Wilcox, so it would be a shame for him to head into retirement with questions about that brought up again. Sitting in on the Green case would insure that the fines he paid are his legacy on the court.

No reasonable person could argue that Justices Prosser and Wilcox would not come into this case with personal biases. Let's hope they don't try.